Talk:LGBT
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LGBT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
LGBT has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Everyday life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class. |
LGBT 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Drop the T was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into LGBT. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by Landlund (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "important subject". |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about LGBT. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about LGBT at the Reference desk. |
Daily pageviews of this article |
|
Pansexual[edit]
Before I start I should declare a conflict of interest as I identify as pansexual I am not unbiased to the topic.
Bi sexual is an attraction to two genders (male +female)(trans inc.)
Pansexual is an attraction to anyone regardless of gender. (Inc those who are not gender binary).
https://www.newuniversity.org/2022/02/07/the-real-differences-between-bisexual-and-pansexual/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/bisexual-vs-pansexual
ChefBear01 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pansexual is referenced in the article as a “sub category” of bisexuality it fails to recognise the differences between the two, all genders is a better reference than saying despite gender:
- bisexuality (two) (male /female)
- pan (all) (gender binary)(gender non conforming))(multiple sexes intersex)
- Pansexual is referenced in the article as a “sub category” of bisexuality it fails to recognise the differences between the two, all genders is a better reference than saying despite gender:
- bisexuality (two) (male /female)
- pan (all) (gender binary)(gender non conforming))(multiple sexes intersexChefBear01 (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to include the A for Asexual visibility in the “LGBTQI” in the first paragraph 1.43.25.124 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. This is already covered in the article, not sure if it merits mention in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC) - I might be slightly biased, but I support this motion. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 17:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I support Googleguy007 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support that too. If we include intersex in the I, why not asexual? Also, the A isn't for asexuals only, A sometimes include aromantic and agender people (imo it should also include androgynes and androgynous people, but there aren't sources on these). — Tazuco 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- The 'A' was additionally first included in the early 2000s and 2010s to represent allies, mainly in university settings, where "LGBTA Alliance" clubs were active, with LGBTA being seen as a more inclusive alternative to the original GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) acronym. It was considered controversial at the time though, and eventually fell out of favor in common use, though some university clubs continue to use "LGBTA" in this way for legacy reasons. It would be nice to see this history reflected somewhere in the article, as the article otherwise makes it seem as though the 'A' was only recently added.
- Here is one source, many more are easily found: https://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_50e5e8f6-5edc-11e4-a17f-f77a797314c5.html 2603:8000:C33E:614F:2C7A:1DB4:A43B:D48B (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If anything, we should probably move in the opposite direction of removing all of the variants of the LGBT abbreviation from the lead, in favor of a sentence indicating something along the lines of "There are many alternate formulations of the LGBT acronym, frequently adding letters or symbols to explicitly include other subgroups within the wider LGBT sphere." IMO, there are too many variations of LGBT to include in the lead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, though I’d also support changing LGBT to “LGBTQ+” in general since it implies inclusion of all sexual and gender minorities without turning into some monstrous alphabet soup. Dronebogus (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a case of mentioning every popular variation or adding more variations, it's a case of inclusion and inherence. although I prefer LGBTQIAPN+, I must admit that LGBTQIA is one of the most compact variants, and well established.
- The Q doesn't always cover ipsogender/cisgender straight intersex and cis heteroromantic asexual people, even though the plus (+) is there. It should also be observed that rowiki uses LGBTQIA+ and svwiki uses HBTQ in the titles. — Tazuco 20:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have never heard HBTQ used in English discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- perhaps it's not used in English either, but I used it in the context that it includes the Q inherently — Tazuco 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have never heard HBTQ used in English discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 28 May 2022[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved for now, possible future consideration for LGBT+ (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
LGBT → LGBTQ – Suggested as more inclusive and encompassing of other identities that are not represented strictly by LGBT umbrella (such as an asexual individual, which is not essentially trans, bi, gay, or lesbian). While there are several other variants, LGBTQ or LGBT+ seems indirectly inclusive of the A (agender/aromantic/ace), I (intersex), P (pansexual), H (hijra/HIV-positive), D (demisexual/demiromantic/demigender), N (non-binary/non-conforming), etc. while not mentioning a bunch of letters into one acronym. While LGBT is simple, LGBTQ is simpler in the sense of inherence and belonging. — Tazuco 23:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment/Question: As you've already said LGBT+ also is indirectly inclusive of the same meanings, why do you prefer LGBTQ over LGBT+? I've checked Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Question marks and plus signs and there's no technical reasons why we couldn't rename to LGBT+. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think LGBTQ is much more commonly used than LGBT+, that's part of the criteria for the name. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. There may be a regional variation there? I know in the UK, charities, NGOs, trade unions, NHS, universities, mediam etc. use LGBT+ and not LGBTQ or LGBTQ+. Though I do recognise if I do a quick Google search for "LGBTQ" I get more results than for "LGBT+" (~188,000,000 versus ~22,400,000) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I fear that LGBT+ could create problems with formatting, which is something we don't want. Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. There may be a regional variation there? I know in the UK, charities, NGOs, trade unions, NHS, universities, mediam etc. use LGBT+ and not LGBTQ or LGBTQ+. Though I do recognise if I do a quick Google search for "LGBTQ" I get more results than for "LGBT+" (~188,000,000 versus ~22,400,000) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: due to the relevance, I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies of this move request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot to check all of the WikiProjects listed in the banner, so have now also notified the rest: WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Sociology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say I'd prefer anything more inclusive than LGBT, so either LGBT+ or LGBTQ (plus LGBTQ+). — Tazuco 17:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Same here. I tend to favor LGBTQ, but I wouldn't mind LGBT+ either. Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now that you think about it. LGBT+ is probably the best way to show acceptance while also shortening it to the original origin. However, I just can't help to feel a certain way because the letter is common used and added. Which is why I think the term LGBTQ+ is better suited because it highlights the shorten acronym, it's inclusive because you are still adding the + sign, and uses the popular variant with the letter. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Same here. I tend to favor LGBTQ, but I wouldn't mind LGBT+ either. Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think LGBTQ is much more commonly used than LGBT+, that's part of the criteria for the name. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - see ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do challenge the common name theory because LGBTQ is commonly used more so than LGBT. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- According to what source? In which countries? — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I encourage you to read these several articles. When I mean that it's more widely recognized. I literally it's globally more acknowledged and recognized. Here are some articles to back up my argument.
- True Colors United
- The Atlantic
- Gay Center
- New York Times
- USA Today
- USF.edu
- Global News
- According to what source? In which countries? — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do challenge the common name theory because LGBTQ is commonly used more so than LGBT. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This last one just explains that the acronym has expanded. My London Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose move per COMMONNAME. O.N.R. (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per BilledMammal. There is significant movement toward LGBTQ, but we will have to wait a bit longer for it to displace LGBT. In specialist literature, this has already occurred, but not yet elsewhere. Urve (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This article has a huge amount of variations listed in bold, this seems unneeded to me, if all these variants need to be mentioned on Wikipedia maybe we can have an article named LGBT acronym variants or similar.★Trekker (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea! Dronebogus (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Would that be a list? — Tazuco 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Discussing variants is this purpose of this article; another article would be redundant. Crossroads -talk- 00:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It should probably have its own section, at least, so we don’t have the problem of “also known as A B C D E F G H I J K…” Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: I'm not sure I'd agree with that, the purpose of this article is to give an overall view of this minority grouping, not to discuss nomenclature.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right. I think an article on variants would make sense. Not sure how it would be "redundant". I have to fully disagree with Crossroads on that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Discussing variants is this purpose of this article; another article would be redundant. Crossroads -talk- 00:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support I understand what those opposing this change are saying, but I would have to throw my weight behind changing it to LGBTQ, especially since it would be an indicator of improved inclusivity on here. Considering the continued problems on here when it comes to gender and racial bias of editors, and a need to make it clear that Wikipedia is a welcoming place for LGBTQ people, I'd say it is the least we can do to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place. Historyday01 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree and also want to add to that. As time as on the acronym is always going to change. But this shorten acronym is the current popular trending and widely used form. I do understand that the full acronym extends beyond LGBTQ, to LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+, and to be honest there are even more letters than that.
- To insure a more welcoming space. Many people across the world use and recognize the popular variant, LGBTQ. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and usage results shown by BilledMammal. Comments supporting seem to be based entirely on "inclusivity", but there is no basis in policy for making content decisions based on what is speculated to please certain demographics. Inclusivity is done through civility, nondiscrimination, etc. and a behavioral framework. Crossroads -talk- 00:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Move to LGBTQIA+. More inclusivity the better. Showiecz (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- This isn’t an inclusivity competition. If the only criterion was “maximum inclusion” then the best option would be something like LGBTQIAA2FHNBKNAPFO+++ which is obviously ridiculous because nobody uses that. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, Showiecz indirectly exemplified why this page shouldn't be moved just because of the need of being inclusive. We cannot move this page over and over again everytime a letter is added to the acronym. This move alone will affect thousands of pages at Category:LGBT. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose if you wanted to be more inclusive, you would have used "LGBT+" but you didn't. LGBTQI2+ would be better than LGBTQ -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that term. Dronebogus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- LGBT questioning/queer intersex two-spirit and plus others; like LGBTQ2 but with I and + added -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- What about LGBTQ+? Adding the plus to the popular variant is still being accepting and inclusive while also recognizing the popular variant. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that term. Dronebogus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose 1. This is not going to solve anything. LGBT is universally agreed upon but pretty much none of the other variations are; changing it to something else, even a relatively common one like LGBTQ or LGBT+, would just encourage more content disputes. 2. This isn’t based in policy, it’s basically WP:GREATWRONGS. It’s fine to choose a more “inclusive” acronym/term for internal purposes, but for encyclopedic purposes we should always go with the common, default name. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support I support the decision to expand the acronym. Reasoning being is because in numerous news outlets, publications, and all across media the acronym LGBTQ has been used. The letter Q has been added to help identify those that identify as queer or questioning their sexual orientation. The expansion of the acronym came into effect during the "2010's" decade. I also support moving the article to the more expanded article LGBTQIA. There are more letters added, but the popular shorter version LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ is often used to highlight the expansion. The expansion also came into effect when the mention of the Kinsey scale has been widely talked about. That has also been used throughout the "2010's" as well. There are also members that identify within the community that prefer to not use labels that's where the letter Q comes into play. The word Queer is also used for people that wish to not label their sexual orientation. Because times has changed and the acronym has expanded through various widespread media outlets. I think it is time we catch up with times.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMOMNAME and BilledMammal's WP:GTEST. Regarding inclusivity, our article titles are guided by accepted policy on the matter, not by what is most morally just. We aim to follow the trends set by reliable sources, not lead them. Endwise (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: as said better by others, our naming conventions are not based on what is morally appropriate in our own view, except that WP:COMMONNAME favors that we avoid "vulgar" names. In this case, I don't think the nominal exclusion of some LGBT+ individuals from the term "LGBT" rises to the level of being "vulgar". Nor is this really the appropriate place to litigate the issue—this article is specifically about LGBT as an acronym, and its etymology and those of related acronyms. It would be different at LGBT community, where we reference a community wider than its four letters at face value. But we should not forget the origin of the term gay as a political category referring to all people oppressed on the basis of gender or sexuality.As to inclusivity issues within our community, discussions are better had over how we materially exclude people on the basis of gender or sexuality, such as how permitted forms of bigoted anti-transgender speech on Wikipedia cause harm. This reality is more important than whether we claim to be inclusive. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I do have a question/comment. What does everyone think about changing the title of the page to LGBTQ+? I would cause us to have another debate over the same topic. But I will be in favor of us having another debate about what title we should move the page to. Also, having a debate about whether or not the page should be move to expanded acronym or if we should even change it at all. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative of LGBTQ; note Google Trends and Google Search (~100 million more results). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding Google Trends, I think typically people are googling a single word on its own because they want to know what it means. I think it is evidence that more people want to know what "LGBTQ" means than what "LGBT" means (not surprising given LGBTQ entered society's lexicon more recently), but I don't think it's evidence that it is the word used more commonly. Endwise (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- All Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
- Wikipedia B-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- Wikipedia B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- High-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- Spoken Wikipedia requests