Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surpassing Certainty - assistance with Content section

Hi all, if anyone has read Janet Mock's second memoir, Surpassing Certainty, the WP entry could really use some help with the "Content" (would be "Plot" if it were fiction) section. Refs not strictly required; in describing what's in a book, the assumption is the book itself is the reference. So you can just summarize what you read! Thanks to any/all who could lend a hand. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 15#Gay propaganda

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 15#Gay propaganda. Opinions are needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerning categories

I have 2 questions please First Sophus Thalbitzer is about a straight ally doctor who like Evelyn Hooker helped to decriminalise homosexuality in Denmark His categories are only LGBT history in Denmark But i added the categories of sexual orientation and psychology and the one of sexual orientation and science just like those of Evelyn Hooker ones. So should Evelyn Hooker be added to LGBT history in the US category Should Evelyn hooker and dophus trablitzer both be added to the category of LGBT activists in the us and in denmark resoectively Since that category contains a lot of LGBT allies and friends and scientists or what?

Second the page Lesbian Movement (Denmark) is in the category of LGBt history in denmark It is an lgbt assiciation that is defunct now Should it be put in LGBt assiciations in denmark category Or what what do u think Sorry for the bother again This may sound stupid and unnecessary for some But it is so important and improving believe me AdamPrideTN (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking different languages of the same page

There is a danish and swedish version of this page Lesbian mouvement (denmark) that are not redericted here to Here is a link to it Can anyone do it pls

https://da.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbisk_Bevægelse AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Lesbian movement (denmark) AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Lesbian Movement (Denmark) AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Armenia and Estonia

Armenia and Estonia do not recognize same-sex marriages. This is clearly shown in the article about Estonia. In the article about Armenia, references to fake news. But the group of participants is engaged in consistent vandalism, lodging information and intimidating other participants --Терпр (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sophie (musician)

The is a (deadnaming) argument here regards the inclusion of the birthname of a transgender artist in the Infobox, that needs assistance. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

no page for : 'In Touch for Men

69.181.23.220 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Heteronormativity article

At Heteronormativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Heteronormativity#The link to heterosexism and homophobia. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Queer erasure article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Heteronormativity#Merge proposal: Merge Queer erasure here. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Pronoun for Rain Dove

Could someone take a look at Rain Dove? People have been changing the pronouns in the article to they and she back and forth, and sometimes to he. Dove has said that there is no preferred pronoun, and sources cited in the article all use female pronouns to refer to Dove as far as I've looked (see talk). I could see arguments for both she and they, but ether way we need to settle on one and move on. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI birthname/pronouns at Christine Hallquist

Hello all, just wanted to let you all know that the article about trans woman politician Christine Hallquist is experiencing repeated attempts to change pronouns and reinsert birthname. While these come from IP and redlinked accounts, they also come from some established editors. Jessamyn has posted guidance on the talk page, and I have just added the MOS-TW template. Per the template, I'm notifying here.--Theredproject (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we've been reverting the same edits by the same 2-3 people for days. My understanding of the identity guideline is that there's no reason to use her previous name in the article for any reason since she was not notable under that name. Do I have a correct understanding? Jessamyn (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Bluerasberry can you provide guidance here on WP:MOS policy? The argument seems to be that birthname/deadname is only appropriate if the subject was notable prior to transition, right? And it is unclear here if she was notable simply as a business executive. That seems to be in dispute.--Theredproject (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Theredproject and Jessamyn: This is not a case where I want to share an interpretation of the manual of style. I will comment on that page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Jessamyn (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move: Radical lesbians → Radical lesbianism

Your opinion is welcome at a proposed move of Radical lesbians to Radical lesbianism. Please add your thoughts at Talk:Radical lesbians#Requested move 31 August 2018. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Should Category:Bisexuality (already in Category:Same-sex sexuality) be categorized in Category:Heterosexuality?

"Bisexual" is sometimes defined as "homosexual and heterosexual" but according to heterosexuality, bisexual people are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Apokrif (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitions vary wildly. I would think it best to remove Category:Same-sex sexuality and add Category:LGBT. It's uncontroversially a sexuality of its own, but saying it's a sum-of-parts of hetero/homo is contentious. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 00:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Roscelese, what do you mean by "the title for one indicates exclusive attraction and the title for the other does not"? As for the Heterosexuality article, just like the Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles, it is not solely about the sexual orientation...but about sexual behavior and sexual identity as well. A person might engage in heterosexual behavior, as many gay men and lesbians have, but not be heterosexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22: fair enough re: the fact that the article and category aren't solely about the orientation. Ultimately I think my "this is a titling mismatch" point is still valid - if people who aren't heterosexual may behave heterosexually, and people who aren't homosexual may behave homosexually (whether we're talking situational homosexuality, or a normal part of being bisexual) then I don't see any reason for the category not to be Category:Homosexuality (rather than having that title redirect to Category:LGBT and using Category:Same-sex sexuality as the actual cat). You follow me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for San Junipero

Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of "San Junipero", an episode of Black Mirror about a romance between two women. The nomination can be found here. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lisa Littman

Your feedback is requested at an Rfc at Talk:Lisa Littman#Possible courses of action regarding this BLP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation

This page is a mess, trying to support the usual non-scientific theories about social and cultural influence on sexual behavior (by even abusing sources like the APA itself). I tried a small fix in section 0, but the whole page seems useless, given there is already Sexual orientation#Influences:_professional_organizations'_statements --151.75.84.245 (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you sign in and stop using your IP to avoid scrutiny? Like I stated at the article's talk page, that "scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" is a fact. And it is supported by solid sources, and yet you removed that from the lead of the article, which was extensively discussed. The lead is meant to summarize the article. And this article is about "environment and sexual orientation." So, yes, per WP:Lead, the lead will include the controversial material you do not like. It is not WP:Undue weight as long as we are clear about what the literature generally supports. The article needs cleanup, but it does not need your biased editing. If I see you tag-team edit warring by using your IP and registered account, I will be reporting you for WP:Socking. And I will likely get the article WP:Semi-protected, which will lead to you either editing with your registered account or using a WP:Sock account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
And to be clearer, although what determines sexual orientation is not conclusive and subject to debate, scientists are very clear that social environment affects sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sharice Davids

Is there a draft that has been started for Sharice Davids? (<--This is now a redirect) She's gotten a lot of press coverage already in major publications for being a Native-American LGBT Democratic nominee in a red state, but her notability kind of hangs on the outcome of the election. I was going to start something, but I didn't want to bother if there was already a version (or two) being cooked up by someone else.--MattMauler (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish to avoid a edit war

Dante "Tex" Gill has had his birth name removed so I wanna know if it should be restored? Dwanyewest (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the sentiment. Adding a person's deadname in bold in the first line of a BLP seems highly avoidable emphasis. For trans people who have changed their names, Wikipedia could do better and should. I would be up for running a policy changing RFC, even if just to stop deadnames being in bold, but we (the LGBT+ community) would have to be clear how we want WP:DEADNAME to change. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Gill wasn't notable under his former name, right? So WP:DEADNAME already covers this and the deadname shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep this one on your watchlist and ensure the deadname stays out.
For the more general issue of emphasis, if we notice any BLP where the subject has complained about being treated badly by Wikipedia due to unnecessary deadname emphasis, please remember to flag them here. Improving guidelines hinges on good case studies! --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Confused about if intersex issues should be covered in some LGBT related articles.

The term LGBT doesn't seem to be inclusive of "intersex" but these days they seem to be included in most subjects. Is it ok for me to add information about intersex military service in articles/sections about LGBT military subjects?★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

★Trekker, see the LGBT article. To some, "intersex" is included; to others, it isn't. If reliable sources don't cover intersex people as part of whatever subject you are reading, it's safe to remove the intersex aspect. Keep WP:Preserve in mind, though, since there might be some reliable sources out there that cover intersex people for the topic at hand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
And I wouldn't add intersex material, unless reliable sources cover intersex people as part of whatever LGBT topic is at hand. Otherwise, it's the editor rather than reliable sources deciding that intersex people are a part of the LGBT topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Hello! I am working on creating a new article for Homophobia toward Ethnic Minorities in the United States. To accomplish this, I will use some of the information that exists on the parent article, Homophobia in ethnic minority communities, and add more detail to all of the sections that focus on the United States. I will also create a section for Native-Americans and detail their experiences of homophobia within the US. T.scott0513 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Kiss of the Spider Woman articles

It's been brought to my attention that Kiss of the Spider Woman (film) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (novel) refer to Molina as a trans woman; I'm not super familiar with them but my understanding, via the people who brought it to my attention, is that that's a potential interpretation that we could mention if able to source, but very far from consensus and that people led to this story by the unambiguous statement that the lead is trans would be disappointed. Can anyone weigh in? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've seen Molina referred to as both a feminine gay man and a straight trans woman. If you need a source, Burke 2007 doi:10.1353/rmc.2007.0020 writes of Molina in the novel: While some critics prefer the label of “homosexual” in their studies of these protagonists, I prefer the use of “transgender,” as I feel it is more accurate in discussing characters who truly do identify more with women interested in pursuing relationships with men, rather than identifying themselves as men attracted to other men. This distinction is especially helpful when we consider that both characters use female pronouns and adjectives when describing themselves in relation to the men in their lives. One line she points to is "Yo y mis amigas somos mu-jer. [...] Nosotras somos mujeres normales que nos acostamos con hombres." (My friends and I are wo-men. [...] We are normal women who go to bed with men.) Umimmak (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - does this reflect the general consensus in how people write about it (= we should leave the text as "Molina is a trans woman" and change the other articles to match) or a supported alternate opinion (= we should change it back to "Molina is an effeminate gay man" but note that this other interpretation also exists)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm less familiar with the play, the movie, and only somewhat familiar with the musical. But there being evidence to support Molina as a trans woman in the novel doesn't mean that is the case for all adaptations (the musical adaptation just has Molina as a gay man, as I recall). It might even depend on translation, since a lot of linguistic evidence is only in the Spanish edition IIRC. (Granted, plenty of cis gay men refer to themselves using feminine pronouns, adjectives, etc.) There could probably be a section discussing either in a characters section or in a themes section that allows for a nuanced representative view in how secondary sources interpret, and historically have interpreted, Molina's character. Umimmak (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Addendum: Unless by editing other articles you mean like List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction which refers to Molina as gay. Umimmak (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about the pages on adaptations, but true, the List article would also be relevant. It's a good point that the answer may be different/less ambiguous/more ambiguous in different versions, but I think my question of "is this the generally accepted scholarly viewpoint, or an alternate interpretation that we have some reliable sources for even if not the majority" still applies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm no kind of expert on Kiss of the Spider Woman in any form, but I'd have to agree that from what I do know, it's not entirely clear whether Molina can be objectively described as a cross-dressing gay man or as a trans woman — I do believe there's room for, and evidence of, both interpretations. My guess would be that probably Manuel Puig intended Molina as a trans woman, but given how much less enlightened we were about trans issues in the 1970s and 1980s than we are today, Molina was understood by audiences and critics, and softpedaled by the creators of the film and stage adaptations, as a gay man in drag — but Puig's also dead, so it's not like we can go back and ask him if I'm right or wrong about what his intentions were. It would likely be most appropriate to acknowledge (with sources) both interpretations while being careful not to express our own opinions one way or the other (for example, we could use gender neutral pronouns for Molina instead of trying to decide between male or female ones.) Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard move request

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Matthew Shepard#Requested move 12 October 2018. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Diane Whipple: duplicate content

I notice the Diane Whipple article has duplicate content. Would someone mind taking a look?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple discrimination/dual discrimination

I know this is a thing. I'm not finding an article about it though. Am I overlooking some obvious difference in naming convention that anyone is aware of? GMGtalk 15:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean intersectionality?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that probably covers it pretty well. Recon we ought to redirect these? GMGtalk 13:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Possibly.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I can't find anything other than section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 (England, Wales, Scotland). Intersectionality is a much broader term than prosecutable combined discrimination. wumbolo ^^^ 15:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Wumbolo, all it needs to be is a plausible search term. That's a pretty low bar all around. GMGtalk 23:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Workplace bullying in academia

Hello. I would like to add a subsection to this article about homophobic/lesbophobic/biphobic/transphobic workplace bullying in academia. For example, if a homophobic professor harasses/bullies another professor because they are LGBTQ. I have found this article so far:

This is related to the It Gets Better Project but somewhat different. The It Gets Better project focuses on students, not professors. The lines may be blurred in the case of graduate student instructors, e.g. if homophobic professors harass an LGBTQ GSI.

Is anyone else interested in expanding Workplace bullying in academia with me and are you able to find more sources we could cite please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have found this book:
Has anyone read it please? It was published more than 20 years ago, but we should be able to use it as an RS, and the bibliography may give us additional clues.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrator Sealle

The administrator Sealle of the Wikimedia Commons and Russian Wikipedia came "ru:Однополые браки в России" and began to delete images under various pretexts: File:Pavel Stotsko and Evgenii Voitsekhovskii are marrying in the wedding office of Copenhagen's Town Hall.jpg File:Official marks in passports of citizens of the Russian Federation on state registration of same-sex marriage.jpg File:Slava Mogutin and Robert Filippini.jpg When contacting the administrator Sealle with a request to clarify the deletion, the administrator is frankly rude and gives unreasonable warnings. In the absence of a rational position and argument, I consider such actions a manifestation of homophobia --Терпрп (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Терпрп, the first two photos still exist on Commons, although there is a deletion discussion concerning the very first one, commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pavel_Stotsko_and_Evgenii_Voitsekhovskii_are_marrying_in_the_wedding_office_of_Copenhagen's_Town_Hall.jpg. There is no deletion proposed for the second one. I can discern nothing about the third one, which is a red link & is not archived at http://web.archive.org/. Peaceray (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The second file has been reloaded. The third file was taken from here [1]/ This is the official site on which the license is listed. --Терпрп (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Input needed

Input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Gender q regarding what the correct Wikidata statement would be for the gender of three drag queens. GMGtalk 20:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggested article move: John/Eleanor Rykener → John Rykener

The article on John/Eleanor Rykener, the 14th-century transvestite sex worker, is up for a suggested more to "John Rykener" and I wondered if more people in this Wikiproject might be interested in joining the discussion on the proposed move. You can join the discussion here. --Woofboy (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns on Bex Taylor-Klaus

Hey! There's a discussion going on over at Bex Taylor-Klaus' talk page about the pronouns on their page! I feel like a couple people might know who they are and want to throw in their opinion! QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Redlink lists

There are tons of lists with redlinks for articles that might become made, but 90% of them are biographies, with the exception of the intersex list, which has a lot more on it. Maybe we should make a list for non-biography proposed articles?★Trekker (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Queer people

There is currently a discussion at CfD about Category:Queer people. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Zombie Land Saga#Lily Hoshikawa's gender

I am attempting to mediate a content dispute at Talk:Zombie Land Saga#Lily Hoshikawa's gender, and I would appreciate fresh eyeballs. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Stéphane Grappelli

There is an RFC at Talk:Stéphane_Grappelli#RFC:_Gay regarding whether or not the article should state that the subject was gay. Please provide your perspective! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

LGBT-related films

I wanted to ask for some opinions about List of LGBT-related films and List of LGBT-related films by storyline.

When these were first created in 2007, a much smaller number of LGBT-related films actually had Wikipedia articles at all, so this may have made sense as a method of organization. For example, even though List of LGBT-related films by year was created concurrently with the other two lists, at the time even it was just a single list with subsections for each year rather than the "list of lists" that it is now — it didn't even start getting split up into lists by individual year until 2012. But with the 2010s having seen an unprecedented explosion in both the number of LGBT-related films getting released and their public visibility and critical or award or audience notability, we now have literally thousands more articles about LGBT-related films than we did in 2007 — so I believe it's time for a rethink.

Firstly, as things currently stand, List of LGBT-related films is still trying to serve as a complete master list of all LGBT-related films, but many films aren't actually getting added to it at all. For instance, when I tried to think off the top of my head of a few notable recent LGBT-related films I could check, the first four I came up with were Boy Erased, It's Only the End of the World, Love, Simon and Moonlight — and sure enough, my random spotcheck had a 50 per cent failure rate: the latter two are listed in that article, while the first two aren't.

But that's just a symptom of the problem, not the actual crux of my argument: the core problem is that we now have around 4,000 articles about LGBT-related films, which means that the "master list" is rapidly becoming unmaintainable. It would literally take weeks to cross-reference the "master list" against all of the "by year" lists to ensure that it's actually complete, and once completed it would be too long to be manageable — and that's before you even consider that there are still also a not-insignficant number of redlinks in the lists above and beyond the 4,000 articles that we already have, as well as some indeterminate number of other films that we may have completely neglected to list anywhere at all. I'm quite certain, in fact, that if somebody really took on a comprehensive project of getting the master list thoroughly compiled, the number of films to be listed in it would be approaching or exceeding 10 thousand.

And I just don't see any real value in List of LGBT-related films by storyline at all: it's also a very incomplete and non-representative selection of films, to which many notable films haven't actually been added at all — and I question whether it's valuable to single out things like "with conversion therapy" and "with tragedy" as noteworthy subgroupings.

Accordingly, my proposals are as follows:

  1. List of LGBT-related films, in its existing form, should just be canned as no longer useful.
  2. List of LGBT-related films by year should be moved to List of LGBT-related films, so that the base title is just the list of lists itself instead of trying to reduplicate a master list of all the films in the by-year lists.
  3. List of LGBT-related films by storyline should be canned, without prejudice against the creation of standalone lists for things like List of gay-related films, List of lesbian-related films, List of bisexual-related films, List of transgender-related films and List of HIV-related films.

Any input? Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Plot description of Butterfly

I recently added episode summaries to Butterfly, a drama about a trans girl. The show begins with the character going by the name "Max" and referred to with "he/him" pronouns. From the start of the second episode onwards, the character is referred to as "Maxine" and uses "she/her". The current summaries—and the rest of the article—refers to the character by Maxine and with she/her only. I'd appreciate if someone else could take a look at the episode summaries and see if there are any poorly written bits; in particular, I'm aiming for the descriptions to be as easy as possible to understand for someone with no/little prior knowledge of trans people, which may render phrases like "her penis" confusing. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Eagle nominated for deletion

Resolved

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Eagle Houston nominated for deletion

Resolved

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Trans deadnaming

I ain't even trans and this nonsense is getting old. Is there someone around here who's better equipped than I am to deal with the smug, straight, cis dudes who insist on deadnaming a trans woman, and yet don't make a peep about the legal names of people like Cher? 24.138.76.242 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, MOS:GENDERID probably has to be changed to be more precise. "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." That's not very useful, is it? wumbolo ^^^ 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The deadnaming has been reverted. Don't forget to visit the article history and thank the reverter (not me), and think about using other thanks like barnstars or wiki love to give positive feedback. Folks do get tired of chasing up these things, and it's important to encourage a virtuous circle of feeling good about handling LGBT+ related articles in a courteous way.
Agreed that current policies are not good. The current policy for including deadnames at the top of the artlcle, next to a person's current name, and in bold, feels ethically wrong and ridiculous to me, regardless of the argument that "but they had notability under that name too". --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The current policy at MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is much clearer: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." I know in the example given, the person isn't directly the subject of the article, so someone arguing in bad faith could still push it, but it might be more useful when issues like this come up than MOS:GENDERID.--MattMauler (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
As a person on the other side of the discussion from the OP in this section, I do invite additional comments. A few notes. This is *not* about a Wikipedia page for Sonique, which doesn't exist yet. On the Wikipedia page for RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2), as with the other seasons, there is a column for Contestant where their Drag Name goes and a column for Name where their legal name goes. In additional, all pages are marked that name and age are as of taping. Wikipedia pages for most of the Drag Queens who have been on RuPaul's Drag Race have been under their Drag Name, though a few are under their legal name Sutan Amrull for Raja is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. When and if a Wikipedia page is made for Sonique, I would fully support having it either under Sonique or her new legal name Kylie Sonique Love. And yes, straight and cis, but have you ever heard of allies?Naraht (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Allies don't insist on deadnaming trans women. Stop doing that, apologize for it, and you might be considered an ally. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why this information is considered important to include to begin with, for any contestant, in the RPDR article as opposed to in their own articles? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
^Right. Why would it make sense to use different methods in this situation for a mention in an article vs. when someone is the subject of one? It seems like a passing mention would warrant it even less (which is why it's probably not even specifically enumerated in the MOS).--MattMauler (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I've always been frustrated with the way editors insist on whatever their legal name was at the time of filming. I don't think it's important for the show -- at some point the legal names got removed from List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants because of WP:BLP concerns and not being able to find reliable sources for everyone's legal names. I know it says Ages and names stated are at time of contest but I've always taken that to refer to their drag name. The same issue comes up for Stacy Layne Matthews (Season 3), Kenya Michaels (Season 4), Monica Beverly Hillz (Season 5), Gia Gunn (Season 6). Peppermint (Season 9) is not dead-named only because she was out as a trans woman before the promotional material for the season. Umimmak (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The birth name should only be included in cases where the person was notable under the birth name, as is the case with Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner (and others). Even if the birth names are not included and bolded in the lead in such cases, they will be redirects to those articles because the birth names are notable and there will be people looking up the subjects under those names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Axis Nightclub nominated for deletion

Resolved

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal life section

I'm not really sure where to write this, and while I realize this isn't about articles strictly germane to the LGBT studies Wikiproject I thought people here might have thoughts. Why is it that only LGBT people have statements about their sexual orientation or whether or not they are trans or cis? Is the idea just that the default is straight and cis and that doesn't need to be specified? Or is it because that is the default, there are fewer reliable sources discussing people being straight or cis? This is in particular in reference to an exchange of edits going on at Shawn Mendes (see discussion on Talk:Shawn Mendes). I also think it should be mentioned because there has been so much speculation as to his sexuality, and leaving it un-mentioned might let the reader infer that he has not spoken publicly about his sexual orientation. Like I said, this might not be the most ideal wikiproject to ask these questions, but I figured people here have thought more than others about the implications of whether or not to include someone's sexual orientation in their article. Thanks. Umimmak (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it is because sources don't normally talk about it and because the "default" nature means that it's not something anyone is likely using the encyclopedia for (the way they might want to read about gay musicians, trans writers, etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This particular case is different because it appears that Mendes has not said that he is heterosexual. However, in general, we should talk about things if and only if reliable sources have spoken about this. The society we live in is heteronormative and cisnormative, so unfortunately that means that we have to reflect coming out culture. That means that almost all of the time a person is cis and/or straight, it should go unmentioned. But if sources do indeed make a big deal of a person being straight or cis, yes we need to mention that. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Like others have stated, we usually don't mention that people are heterosexual on Wikipedia. In that same vein, we don't have heterosexual categories, a topic that was discussed here at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Yes, this is due to our heteronormative society and the fact that being heterosexual is usually not a part of one's notability, while being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or non-binary is commonly a part of one's notability. There are also facets like what Roscelese noted -- people who might want to read about "gay musicians, trans writers, etc." See what Bearcat stated in the discussion I just linked to. People are assumed to be heterosexual far more than they are assumed to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Many people in the LGBT community can attest to a doctor, for example, assuming that they are heterosexual when asking if they are sexually active or similar. When one assumes that someone is gay, it's usually based on "gaydar," which is primarily based on stereotypes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So shouldn't Wikipedia help fight heteronormativity by explicitly mentioning when someone is heterosexual when there are reliable sources discussing their sexuality rather than continuing to treat it like the default which doesn't need to be said? Umimmak (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
No, because Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs. It's not the place for advocacy. WP:BLPCAT states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." We apply personal life material the same way we apply categories with regard to WP:BLPCAT. If a gay man is not notable for being gay (in part or otherwise), or being gay is not relevant to his public life, a case can be made to not mention that he's gay. But because so many sources still take the time to mention when someone is gay because being out is still a big deal, and the LGBT categories are so important for reasons that Bearcat mentioned, an out gay man will usually be noted as gay in his Wikipedia article. The gay and/or LGBT categories shouldn't be in the article if there is no text/no reliable source in the article noting that the person is gay. Same goes for lesbian, bisexual, asexual and transgender people or non-binary people. If sources make a big deal about someone being heterosexual, then I guess it's fine to mention that the person is heterosexual. I haven't yet looked at the Shawn Mendes case to see if that's what going on there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll agree that categories might have a different standard from a passing mention in the article, but re If a gay man is not notable for being gay (in part or otherwise), or being gay is not relevant to his public life, a case can be made to not mention that he's gay. -- has that ever happened? I can't say I recall someone removing a well-sourced mention of someone being gay because it doesn't come up often or because sources don't discuss its influence on their public life or their work or whatever. Umimmak (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it has. Well, there is the Luke Evans (actor) case. I watch that Wikipedia article. Look at the old debates currently still seen at Talk:Luke Evans (actor). There, you can see editors debating his sexuality and what to mention or not to mention in the Wikipedia article. Evans has not talked much about his sexual orientation. Going by one of his publicists (former or current, I'm not sure), he's made a concerted effort to usually not publicly discuss being gay. And being gay is not a part of his notability or public life (although, yes, the public who cares to look into it knows about it). Since there is reliable material about Evans being gay and he's in Category:Gay actors and LGBT categories, the argument to not mention that he's gay in his Wikipedia article would be an uphill battle. It (the text and categories) would keep being re-added. As for other cases, there have been discussions on this talk page about mentioning or categorizing historical figures as gay, especially before modern day sexual orientation conceptualizations and terminology came into existence. And going back to what I initially stated, Wikipedia obviously isn't the only place to pay mind to people or topics because they are LGBT. Sites like Netflix do this as well. Netflix has a LGBT section, but not a heterosexual section...for obvious reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Umimmak: Well, it certainly happens (see Talk:Stéphane Grappelli or the archive of Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden for examples), but of course the idea that there should be a higher barrier to inclusion for sexual orientation than for any other piece of trivia, personal-life or otherwise, is one that many of us oppose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a higher barrier for sexual orientation because there have been so many contentious WP:BLP issues regarding it. Same goes for religious beliefs. This is why WP:BLPCAT addresses both. Sexual orientation isn't a trivial mention when it's a part of one's notability or relevant to their public life. It's just that it's usually not part of the person's notability or relevant to their public life when the person is heterosexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Going out of our way to call attention to someone's heterosexuality is not "helping to fight heteronormativity". Working to improve the visibility of people who aren't heterosexual combats heteronormativity, and belaboring the heterosexuality of heterosexuals does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
My point was that right now there's no difference in the way Wikipedia treats subjects whose sexuality is unknown vs those whose sexuality is known but is not mentioned because heterosexuality is seen as the default. Umimmak (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is fundamentally heteronormative and is far, far more likely to disappear from the internet before it even comes close to stopping being heteronormative and male dominated. As LGBT+ editors we see this very clearly, as our noses are rubbed in it every time we read Wikipedia or mention that we are LGBT+ editors and those we work collegiately with treat us as political lobbyists simply for self-identifying. It's tiring being in non-safe spaces. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of open LGBT+ candidates for Arbcom

I have raised this question at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates#Diversity. Some may wish to chip in. At the moment it's very much nobody cares, and we don't understand why this would be important. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks a lot like nothing is being done to encourage anyone to run for ArbCom, and everything is being done, at least in Jerry Springer's 2018 Wikipedia election bonanza the current election to drive everyone away as much as possible. GMGtalk 22:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ikr, why would someone want to be remembered and hated for their ArbCom decisions, especially if they've received a lot of hate in their life previously, so they know how it is... wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Well if we have an environment where bare knuckle nastiness is the norm, and apparently salacious sexual details are the order of the day..I mean...why would someone ever tell anyone anything about themselves ever? I'm reminded of a recent comment I saw on IRC where an established user said they would be excited about working IRL for the project on their campus, but wouldn't because they were too afraid they'd be outed. So yeah, that's the environment we've made for ourselves. GMGtalk 01:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just raising my hand to be counted as one Wikipedian who took one look at that "debate" and turned right back around. Not something I can take on at the moment for reasons already well explained but I do feel there should be some record of whether there are in fact people being run out of the conversation: yes. (Thank you, Fæ, for trying.) Innisfree987 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I found the discussion entirely hostile and the community there totally unwilling to take on board that heteronormativity exists, and may be an issue of systemic bias for Arbcom. I have closed with

"Arbcom has no interest in taking a single step to improve diversity, clearly the Committee is determined to remain ignorant to any potential issues of systemic bias unless it is forced into changing or even publicly reporting on its own governance. Though I have been invited to take further action, being derided and repeatedly slurred in this discussion by accusing me of bizarre assertions that I never made, is clearly hostile and remains the norm for closing down minority views.
Should Arbcom ever want to talk about this seriously and engage with minority community representatives, they will have to take a long hard look at how to establish a safe space for doing so. There are few LGBT+ contributors that will make themselves a target by asking tricky questions in the way I have done here, I would not recommend it to anyone, it's not worth it."

If any openly LGBT+ contributors are thinking of joining Arbcom in the future, take a slow read through the responses there. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata RFC for sexual orientation labels

Back in February, I started an RFC on Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT about “What values should we use for sexual orientation?”, but it got very little traction (with only 2 people making comments, 1 here and 1 there). While it seems like a relatively minor thing, there are some things that currently cannot be encoded in Wikidata without breaking data-integrity constraints. That doesn't make too much difference in practice, but it does mean that changes like listing Tanya Saracho (Tanya Saracho (Q22280306)) as identifying as queer (queer (Q51415)) is much more likely to be reverted until we find a way that can reach consensus.

If anyone who has any opinion about how to record people's self-identified gender and orientation could contribute there that would be very much appreciated. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Rita Ora and bisexuality

Opinions are needed at Talk:Rita Ora#Bisexuality. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A draft

Hello I created a dreaft about Draft:Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands from information that i can only find from the net Its short i know but its a jurisdiction so i think it deserves it's own like other overseas territories Do u know how and Would u help in any way to make it a page and not just a draft Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamPrideTN (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi AdamPrideTN and thanks for your willingness to work on making sure the encyclopedia has this information! If I'm reading the page histories correctly, it looks as if the entry already existed as a redirect, so Jedi Friend has already expanded it and moved the material from your draft into the mainspace. Thanks!
As a quick note to Jedi, because of Wikipedia copyright policy, when you make a WP:COPYPASTE move like this, it's important to make sure your edit summary notes the source article, in order to retain attribution history. No worries that you didn't do this with the initial move: this link will explain how to fix it: Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#How_about_copying_from_one_Wikipedia_article_to_another?. In the case of copying from a draft, it's also necessary to redirect the draft to the new mainspace entry because otherwise it will be deleted as A10 or eventually G13, and the required history of authorship will be lost. I'll take care of that though!
In the future, the easiest thing to do is generally to request a housekeeping deletion on the redirect, WP:G6 to make way, and then you can move the draft to mainspace. That'll retain the history without all the extra steps.
Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Native American reservations

I feel like Wikipedia should cover this subject somewhere in some way (can't find much now). They are independent pretty much in the same way as states, how has this factored into LGBT rights?★Trekker (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi *Treker, this seems reasonable enough to me, pending available sources on the topic. But if you can gather a few good ones to establish notability, I definitely think it'd be helpful--I can easily imagine that once the page is started, readers who have knowledge of the topic might add to it. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try my best to try to find some!★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I looked around on Wikipedia and I did find this article. But outside of marriage there is little mention of LGBT rights, no mentions of adoption rights, protection or Trans rights. So yeah I for sure see room for expansion if we find reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Gay–straight alliance

I'm looking to improve the article Gay–straight alliance, and have raised two issues on the Talk page:

Your opinions and feedback at either or both of the discussions would be welcome, as would your assistance improving the article. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Trapper John Syndrome

On the medical comedy-drama Trapper John, M.D. (based on a character in MASH (film)), there was an episode with a very young patient with male organs. I have no idea what was wrong with the child, but the discovery was made that "he" was actually female and the doctors recommended the male organs be removed and the child be raised female. The parents objected and wanted to raise the child as a male, because that's what "he" had always been. They were told that would be much more complicated and expensive and harder on the child. I don't even remember what decision was made. I'm wondering if there's a name for the child's situation. For now, I'll call it "Trapper John Syndrome".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Found it, I think. The summary for Episode 78 uses the term "hermaphrodite".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That's definitely the term that was in use at the time, though a contemporary source would (and should) use the more neutral and objective term intersex instead. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the favoured term now Disorders of sex development? Working that gracefully into the prose would make it clear that the individual in question had one of a variety of medical conditions, rather than This One Thing Called Intersex. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what is intended by “This One Thing” but aren’t LGBT people also reduced to one dimensional stereotypes? Intersex is the common name, supported by page views and popular usage, and there are strong objections to “disorders of sex development”. This term is also leading, suggesting that surgery is desirable to “fix” the child. Terms like “intersex condition” or “intersex variation” are possible. Trankuility (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Concurring with Trankuility. The wiki article for disorders of sex development notes early that human rights organizations object to the term but it is used in a medical context by some groups still. Hermaphrodite refers to animals capable of producing both sperm and eggs, using it for intersex people is now seen as misleading. Rab V (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Various cross-dressing articles would benefit from better cross-referencing

A little while ago I added to the lead of Cross-dressing the sentence "It is related to, but not synonymous with, transvestism." This was then reverted, with that editor taking the positive step of improving another article: "Not sourced, and contradicted by sources I added at Transvestism#Terminology." I took the ball and ran with it, as I believe Americans say, using the newly added material to create a terminology section for Cross-dressing. So far so good.

But what I found in reading those sources is that even well over a decade ago, there was an activist academic argument that "The term cross-dressing too is somewhat outdated and problematic". So what terms and links can we use to help the average, non-specialist reader? I think there ought to be prominent prose statements to help them find what they are looking for. By "prose" I mean in the main text, not just info boxes or see also section, and preferably in the lead. Where there's any likelihood of possible confusion, I support crafting a sentence or two to the effect "Topic A used to be known as B, although campaigners now also suggest term C. Topic A is generally taken to be a particular type of D, and overlaps significantly with E." With lovely useful links for all of those letters, of course.

Do Cross-dressing and Transvestism deserve separate articles, or would a merge be sensible? Which term is more searched for? My perception is that people not in the know will assume the two words are quasi-synonymous. How can we make it clear in the leads (of all relevant articles) that they aren't? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As seen here at Talk:Transvestism in 2016, I listed a number of reliable sources noting that the term cross-dresser is considered more appropriate than the term transvestite, which is now considered outdated and derogatory. It's clearly seen as a synonym for transvestite. What reliable sources do you have stating that they are not synonyms and need to be distinguished? Same goes for cross-dressing (rather than cross-dresser) and transvestism (rather than transvestite)? What sources, other than the Meg-John Barker source I listed on the aforementioned talk page (but should have noted that it's a reprint), states that term cross-dresser or cross-dressing is also outdated and derogatory? Barker states, "The term cross-dressing too is somewhat outdated and problematic as not only do many fashions allow any gender to wear them -- at least in many contemporary Western societies -- but it also suggests a strict dichotomy being reinforced by the person who uses it." Barker states "somewhat outdated and problematic," not simply "outdated" and not "derogatory." And Barker is just one person, and their statement is not the consensus, which is why, keeping WP:Due weight in mind, I did not include their statement when updating the "Terminology" section at the Transvestism article. But you recently included part of Barker's statement in the Cross-dressing article ("part" as in "without full context"). The thing is this: Out of these two terms, cross-dresser is now preferred. Unless there is another term just as popular, we should use cross-dresser or cross-dressing...except for cases where the term transvestite or transvestism should be used instead. "Transvestism," for example, and as you know, is used when referring to certain medical texts.
As for merging, as indicated at Talk:Transvestism, I am fine with the Transvestism article being merged into the Cross-dressing article.
Also, you titled this section "various articles would benefit from better cross-referencing," but this section is only about cross-dressing/transvestism. So I tweaked the title. If you think the previous title is better, feel free to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Completely opposed any kind of merger. Cross-dressing is a far wider term that can also include examples of people cross-dressing for survival/to avoid war/to go to war/to avoid sexism/by force/for money. Transvestism is often only considered today to refer to cross-dressing for personal enjoyment. Many people who identify as "transvestites" feel it only implies hetrosexual men who do it for personal pleasure, while gay men/lesbians for example who cross-dress for entertainment are called "drag queens/kings". Both are a subset of different types of cross-dressing but I don't think merging all three into a single article is a good idea at all. They need expansion instead.★Trekker (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And what you stated needs reliable sourcing before such expansion. If you have reliable sources distinguishing the terms in those ways, listing them here is a start. We aren't suggesting that the Transvestic fetishism article be merged. Transvestic fetishism is a psychiatric diagnosis and is commonly associated with men, and with trans women with late-onset gender dysphoria. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And I never once mentioned anything about Transvestic fetishism.★Trekker (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
When you stated that "many people who identify as 'transvestites' feel it only implies het[e]rosexual men who do it for personal pleasure" and "I don't think merging all three into a single article is a good idea at all," I figured you were talking about the Transvestic fetishism article as well. Only two articles were mentioned above before I pointed to the Transvestic fetishism article. You are correct that the term transvestite is usually associated with men, and not just by laypeople. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Carbon Caryatid's edits have also concerned transvestic fetishism. If by "all three," you mean "drag queens/kings," well, of course, the Drag queen and Drag king articles should remain separate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I meant Cross-dressing, Drag and Transvestism. What I was going for is that transvestism is as much a subset of cross-dressing as drag is, I do not believe transvestism being a subcategory of cross-dressing justifies it being merged wholesale into the cross-dressing article the same way I think drag should not be. (I guess I was unclear about that to be fair.) They're independenlty notable subjectes with enough differences that separate articles is beneficial in my opinion. Either as for sources, way the book Crossdressing in Context, Vol. 2 page 67 states "In the first half of the 20th century transvestites were commonly assumed to be to be homosexual, either openly or latently. This popular conception ran counter to the research showing that most male crossdressers identify as heterosexual and typically are or have been married. Gradual recognition and acceptance of the differences found among those who crossdress led to a restricting of the term transvestism to only some kinds of crossdressing. Thus, all Transvesties crossdress, but not all crossdressers are Transvestites."★Trekker (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The book The “Femme” Fatale in Brazilian Cinema: Challenging Hollywood Norms also expresses that drag and transvestism are some of the subsets of cross-dressing. It also explains that transvestism differenciates between itself from drag in that there is often a genuine desire to pass among others (motivations can vary), while drag is without any form of masquarading that the performers are actually of a different sex than they present as. Which I tought was interesting.★Trekker (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Another book: Tolerable Differences states "Cross dressing is a broader term than transvestism. Cross dressing refers simply to wearing the clothing of the opposite sex." and Transvestism in the Middle Ages: The Venusfahrt of Ulrich Von Liechtenstein agrees that Transvestism is generally cross-dressing by men, and not women, while the book Gender Dysphoria: Development, Research, Management expresses that modern psychologists do not generally refer to crossdressing homosexual men as "transvestites" anymore.★Trekker (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The book Transvestite Narratives in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century states "a broad spectrum of cross-dressing behaviors from transvestophilia (or transvestic fetishism) to the non-fetishistic cross-dressing that is commonly known as transvestism". I feel this i a potentially good reference to have to explain that not all transvestites are fetishistic.★Trekker (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you bringing sources to the table. Goodness knows I didn't want to have to do it. That first statement and ones like it do not negate the fact that cross-dresser is preferred to the term transvestite -- is suggested by numerous reliable sources to be used in place of transvestite -- even with cross-dresser being broader. That statement and those like it don't mean that we should have both a Cross-dressing article and a Transvestism article. The Transvestism article is called "Transvestism," not "Transvestite." And if one considers cross-dresser to be the broader term, there is nothing wrong with having a Transvestism section in the Cross-dressing article and having "transvestite" and "transvestism" redirect there. We have small articles merged into larger articles as subsets all the time. The Transvestism article is small and does not distinguish itself well from cross-dressing because sources do not distinguish it well from cross-dressing (other than the aforementioned cross-dresser vs. transvestite terminology, whether regarding the outdated and derogatory aspect or the "transvestite usually refers to men" aspect). I see no benefit in having both a Cross-dressing article and a Transvestism article, and I doubt most other editors would if I started an RfC on the matter. The Drag article is titled "Drag (clothing)," but, looking at it, it could also be validly merged into the Cross-dressing article. We should focus on the Cross-dressing and Transvestism articles for now, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
While I do agree that the term "transvestite" has a negative connotation to it in modern day (especially when used against transgender people and sometimes feminine men) it is still the general term used for men who exhibit "transvesism" and is and has been used by many in the past and some today still. I do not think it is a reason to ignore the long history and coverage of the term and the people it applies to. We still cover terms like "queer" in separate articles and acknowledge it's troubled past as a slur which it still retains to day while also being a term used by many LGBT people in many contexts, accademic and other. I feel, like I said above, that these subjcts are independently notable and that their articles should be expanded on, not merged. I guess to some extent it might be a bit of an inclusionist vs deletionist debate in the end but I hope we come to some consensus that's best for the encyclopedia.★Trekker (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way I did link the Drag (clothing) article and not just the disambiguation page Drag, I used the | to shorten it because that's what I'm used to.★Trekker (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Merging would not be ignoring. See WP:No page. Sometimes a topic does not need its own article, especially when there is substantial overlap. We are not helping readers by having them go to two different articles for information in an overlap case such as this one. It's true that I am usually for merging when I see a matter as a WP:No page case, just like with this case where we agreed to have cissexism redirect to the Transphobia article, but I don't consider myself a WP:Deletionist. Gay and Queer are their own articles because those articles are specifically about the terms, not the concept homosexuality, and those terms have meanings outside of homosexuality. Regarding the Drag article, I know that. I just wanted to make clear what the actual title is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, queer is far more reclaimed as a word than transvestite is. Queer studies exist, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it if I ask why exactly you brought up the fact that cross-dresser is a prefered term in our discussion, since I had not mentioned the subject of the terms offensiveness at all? The fact that you brough it up made me think you were using it as a motivation for why the subject shouldn't have an article, that's why I mentioned the queer example. I don't think how much a word is ok now has effect on if it's a subject worthy of an article or not.
As for there being substantial overlap, what is the meaning of having GNG if they can just be overridden by similarity to another subject? And to what extent do who subjects have to be similar enough? For example transvestic fetishism is very short too, should it be merged despite being an independently notable subject? You seem to feel that several cross-dressing related articles could fit into one, but why? Sure we could do that but is that really helpful to readers? Is having one very long and overly broad artice better than having a couple of more focused ones that are a little smaller? The Drag article for example that you felt could also be merged has a decently long history section, should that one be moved wholesale to the drag section or cut up and sprinked out in related sections of the history of cross-dressing? Is that very helpful if someone wants to know specificaly about the history of drag/drag culture? What about Ball culture, should that also be merged then since it's a subculture of LGBT culture and not super long? I can see your points about there being overlap but I do not agree that merging them into the same article would be for the best, esspecially the drag one.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I brought it up for the same reason that I addressed it in my initial post (my reply to Carbon Caryatid). In other words, it is a part of the overlap. Part of that small Transvestism article concerns terminology. I also brought it up because your first post in this section began with a focus on terminology, and you cited sources concerning cross-dresser vs. transvestite terminology. So I fail to see why you think I "brought it up," other than my initial post above (but even then, it was Carbon Caryatid who first addressed terminology). Per what I've argued, I'm not following your argument for having a Transvestism article. Furthermore, the Cross-dressing article would not be big or huge by having a Transvestism section. We are not focused on the Drag (clothing) article right now, but that article actually isn't big either when one looks past its table of contents. And any redundancy upon merging it should be cut, which would also reduce size. And, yes, the Transvestic fetishism article can validly have a subsection under "Transvestism" in the Cross-dressing article, or be validly placed there under "Transvestism" without a subheading. It's not like it's not already mentioned in the Cross-dressing article anyway. But the sources are not comparing and conflating the cross-dresser and transvestic fetishism terms/concepts (not usually anyway). They are comparing and conflating cross-dresser and transvestite. Plus, as stated before, transvestic fetishism is a psychiatric diagnosis. And that some articles are merged obviously doesn't mean that other articles should be merged. It's a case-by-case matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As for "what is the meaning of having GNG if they can just be overridden by similarity to another subject?", I don't know what to state to you but to again point to WP:No page, which is a subsection of WP:Notability. And, of course, WP:GNG is also a subsection of that guideline. In any case, I'm not looking to have the Cross-dressing and Transvestism articles merged. I'm stating that I understand the merge suggestions (the ones seen on the Transvestism talk page and the one by Carbon Caryatid above) and that I would support the merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You pointed out That first statement and ones like it do not negate the fact that cross-dresser is preferred to the term transvestite and I wonder why you pointed that out to me since I never argued against that. Especially when the info I dug up absolutely supported the idea that transvestite should not be used in general for crossdressers? Did I seem like I was arguing for replacing crossdresser with transvestite in my text? Because that was certainly not my intention to come off like that. ★Trekker (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019‎ (UTC)
I argued it because you were making a case for distinguishing the terms. When numerous reliable sources suggest people use the term cross-dresser in place of transvestite, that is an argument for the terms being synonymous and one being preferred over the other. I'm not stating that they are automatically synonymous, but they are clearly seen as synonyms often enough. Look at the sources I listed at the Transvestism talk page. Above, I clearly stated, "That first statement and ones like it do not negate the fact that 'cross-dresser' is preferred to the term 'transvestite' -- is suggested by numerous reliable sources to be used in place of 'transvestite' -- even with 'cross-dresser' being broader." I noted it especially because you are arguing that "the info [you] dug up absolutely support[s] the idea that transvestite should not be used in general for crossdressers." I never stated that transvestite should be used in general for cross-dresser. I've been noting that sources advise that transvestite not be used at all and that cross-dresser be used in its place. I already stated, "Unless there is another term just as popular, we should use 'cross-dresser' or 'cross-dressing'...except for cases where the term 'transvestite' or 'transvestism' should be used instead. 'Transvestism,' for example [...] is used when referring to certain medical texts." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I never stated that transvestite should be used in general for cross-dresser. And I never claimed that you did, as a matter of fact I'm confused to how one would think that based on what I've written. What I said is that I felt that you seemed to be implying that I was saying that when you pointed out the "cross-dresser > transvestite terminology" thing to me, which I was already well aware of (I'm sure any english speaker with a finger in the LGBT world would know transvestite could be seen as ugly to use). I was never interested to talk about the general terminology for cross-dressers and it was not something I brought up in my text. I only ever wanted to state that transvestism could be specified to be a specific form of cross-dressing, which it is, not if one word should be used for all people who cross-dress.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not stating that you stated that. I was making it clear that I did not argue that/was not arguing that. As for "the general terminology for cross-dressers," it is part of this discussion. The discussion started off with a focus on terminology, and you continued it by stating "cross-dressing is a far wider term." In enough sources, it's simply seen as a better term than transvestite (rather than "a far wider term"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"Enough sources"? Enough sources by whos' standard? According to many homosexual is completely synonymous with gay (see for example how many people simply call it "gay marriage" all the time or say "gay people" or "gay rights"). That doesn't mean that there isn't a more specific use of the term gay to refer mostly to only homosexual men. You may have your modern sources that comply with your opinion that the terms are completly interchanagble but if you look trought history and asked a historian if the thousands of women who disguised themselves as men to join the military were "cross-dressing" they'd obviously say yes or if the men who dressed up as women to escape service were "cross-dressing" they'd also say yes (we even have a list related to this called "list of wartime cross-dressers") but pretty much no one would ever call those people "transvestites". Just because you can use the broader term to refer to the subset that doesn't mean they're actually completly synonumus. The only reason the word "transvestite" has fallen out of use in modern day is because people associate it with transphobes throwing it at transgender women and assuming it always has to do with the fetish. Not because it's always meant the exact exact same thing as cross-dresser and people are just now suddenly in modern day deciding to pick one over the other "just caus".★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Enough sources by our WP:Due weight policy. As for homosexual being completely synonymous with gay, "homosexual" is the primary meaning of "gay," which is why we begin the Gay Wikipedia article with that definition, not with its original meaning. It's why the Gay article is mainly about that meaning. And again, the Gay article is specifically about the term gay. The Cross-dressing article is not specifically about the term cross-dresser, and the Transvestism article is not specifically about the term transvestite. As noted at WP:Refers, we have articles about words and we have articles about concepts. Gay is a word article. The Cross-dressing and Transvestism articles are about concepts. As for your "doesn't mean that there isn't a more specific use of the term 'gay' to refer mostly to only homosexual men" statement, there isn't. This was discussed before. What specific term, other than a derogatory term, is there to refer to gay men as a whole? Do enlighten me. Gay refers to both homosexual men and homosexual women, even with its use to refer to homosexual men with phrases like "gay and lesbian," or with the initialism LGBT. Your argument that I "may have [my] modern sources that comply with [my] opinion that the terms are complet[e]ly interchan[geable]" ignores my above statement that "I'm not stating that they are automatically synonymous, but they are clearly seen as synonyms often enough." Words don't have to be complete synonyms to be synonyms. Nowhere did I argue that cross-dresser and transvestite are completely synonymous. Nowhere did I argue that transvestite has always meant the exact same thing as cross-dresser. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, that opened a can of worms, didn't it. I should have guessed that this had been discussed years ago. FWIW, I don't think merging Cross-dressing and Transvestism is the answer, not least because (despite trimming any repetition) it would create an overly long article. What is needed is a clearer indication in the lead of all relevant articles (e.g. History of cross-dressing) what is covered therein, and links to look elsewhere. Relatedly, in Transgender#Transvestite_or_cross-dresser, a little while ago I tried to clarify Gilbert's definition, which includes the hair-splitting distinction that "These individuals are cross dressing but are not cross dressers". I inserted a parenthetical sentence, with piped links:
(It also excludes those people who, throughout history, adopted a gender disguise in order to do things forbidden to their sex, for example attending higher education or going to war.)
That was reverted today. I want to avoid WP:RECENTISM and ensure that all relevant articles include the long and worldwide history of people wearing clothes they "shouldn't" for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with whether they see themselves as man, woman, or other. Too often these articles seemed weighed towards the past 10 or 20 years. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Can of worms? It needed discussion. I stand by everything I stated above. The Transvestism article should be merged with the Cross-dressing article. Any unnecessary redundancy should be removed and "Transvestism" should be a section within the Cross-dressing article. Again, the Cross-dressing article would not be overly long in the least. I could merge the articles now as an example and then un-merge them. We are not helping readers by unnecessarily sending them to the small Transvestism article when it substantially overlaps with the Cross-dressing article and anything readers need to know about transvestism can be covered in the Cross-dressing article without overwhelming it. As for the Transgender article, I explained why I reverted you. And Mathglot partially reverted you here at the Cross-dressing article for the same reason I noted above. It seems that Mathglot considered what I stated above and reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata gender coding - drag queens

I'm working through wikidata records for people, to try to ensure they have a P21 Gender code. I'm regularly defeated by drag queens, bless 'em, for the reason that their wikipedia articles tend to include a mix of he & she pronouns, and I would not wish to cause offense. Wikidata suports a wide range of genders, including various trans and non-binary, so it should be possible to do the job properly. Should anyone here have more knowledge & confidence in this matter than I, here are a couple of candidates for coding; I'm sure more will follow. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the rule for writing about drag queens is the same as the rule for speaking about them: when you're writing about the drag character, you use the pronouns that are applicable to the gender of the character, but when you're writing about the performer's personal life out of drag, you use the pronouns that are applicable to their real-life gender identity. Yes, this can result in mixing of pronouns when a drag queen identifies as male in his personal life, but of course there are also both cis and trans women who do drag, as well as queens who identify as non-binary or genderqueer and use gender-neutral pronouns — and both of the articles you've singled out actually appear to be doing it wrong, because they both use female pronouns consistently, even for out-of-drag personal life content, without actually stating or sourcing that either Zavion Davenport or Joey Santolini identifies as female outside of their work as drag performers. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bearcat; that's useful guidance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
+1 to everything Bearcat said. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Lesbian utopia article up or deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian utopia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jim Rash

I started the discussion at Talk:Jim Rash#Instagram post a while ago; I invite you for some input. -- George Ho (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Gayish (podcast) at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayish (podcast) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT

LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Hornet Stories (hornet.com/stories) and Unicorn Booty (unicornbooty.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Hornet Stories and Unicorn Booty (unicornbooty.com; defunct) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Hornet Stories (hornet.com/stories) and Unicorn Booty (unicornbooty.com) — Newslinger talk 02:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants. Nihlus 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Identity verification and pronouns

Here is the situation:

  • People can change their gender presentation
  • Sometimes Wikipedia has reliable sources which report a former gender
  • Wikipedia requires reliable sources to make changes to articles
  • We get requests to change gender pronouns in the absence of WP:Reliable sources which we almost always require for such changes
  • We sometimes have hoaxes, harassment, or other reports made as misconduct to inappropriately change people's gender in wiki records, so already there are people gaming the system before it is even established
  • If someone wants to change their gender presentation in Wikipedia, we do not have a stable process for identity verification outside of reliable sources

This entire situation is going to require multiple discussions to set policy over the years. It might not be time to plan to tackle this now, but as one part of this, I started drafting out WP:Identity verification. I want to develop this into an information page on how the Wikipedia community checks the identity of Wikimedia users or other people who contact us.

One use case of this could be in providing a process by means of which individuals could contact us for a gender change in a Wikipedia article about them.

My opinion is that we do not have the security infrastructure to check people's private identification nor do we have the training in place to encourage any Wikimedian to do this consistently or fairly. Someday we might. For now, I am only documenting what already seems to happen in the space of identification checks.

See here - Wikipedia:Identity verification

If anyone wants to contribute information about Wikipedia's current identification process then please share any thoughts.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Should front hole remain a redirect or is this a notable neologism?

See article history. 2600:1003:B11B:35C7:0:26:D0C8:1101 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova and transphobic comments

Martina Navratilova has been sacked from the advisory board of Athlete Ally due to "[her] recent comments on trans athletes are transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence." I have added a sentence to Martina_Navratilova#Activism_and_opinions but kept it brief. As this is an evolving and controversial press story, I would appreciate more eyes to ensure that this is maintained and kept fully accurate.

I am aware that an instant response would be to remove "transphobic" (mainly because Navratilova states she is not a transphobe), but this is exactly what the reliable sources support, and what Navratilova's own published statements make unambiguous. The press release by Athlete Ally seems an accurate summary. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If the only controversy is whether the comments were transphobic, then "transphobic" should be in quotation marks as something Athlete Ally have said. I oppose removing it as it is covered in reliable sources and it's not a BLP issue. wumbolo ^^^ 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair observation. I have swapped the single word for the quote from Athlete Ally. It seems long, but avoids the risk of second hand reporting or cherry picking of the facts appearing more controversial. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_65&oldid=889200018"