Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

2022 FIFA World Cup

There is an interesting discussion about the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Some soccer fans seem to think that LGBT rights in Qatar should not be addressed in the article. Besides, one of them has prodded the LGBT rights in Qatar entry. Hektor (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter H. Breen

Walter H. Breen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"well known for .... his conviction for child molestation, and for his writings in defense of pederasty."

But does being associated with NAMBLA make you a LGBT activist? I say not [1]. Informed comment welcome.--Scott Mac 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on Donald Mader, "Walter Breen aka J.Z. Eglinton 1928–1993" in Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, he was a writer/scholar. Despite the title of that volume, I should add. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

request for biographies

This was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and I thought I would draw it to your attention:

Given the world's extraordinary number of gay/L/B/T people the making of a list might never end. But I would like to speak for myself for a minute: Im David Scondras, first elected city Councilor in Boston's history, wrote and passed the nation's first gay rights law in 1983, with five other elected officials began the gay elected officials conference, started the non profit 'search for a cure', was intrumental in developing Malawi's treatment program for HIV getting that country 190 million dollars, sat on Thabo Mbeki's expert AIDS panel, created the country's only check box on state income tax to allow contributions to finding a cure for AIDS, and I am finishing my autobiography. I am 65, live in Cambridge near MIT and am one of many others I think ought be in Wickepedia: e.g. a supreme court justic in Malawi who is very courageous; Gary Dotterman who was the advance man for Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy and the first gay man to have Brazil acknowledge his marriage to a Brazilian partner, and many others.

David Scondras <telephone number redacted>65.96.170.240 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that if you want a project to recognise you, you ought to get its name right? -- role^player 11:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignore me, I was being facetious. In his request he wrote: one of many others I think ought be in Wickepedia. I wasn't referring to you, but to him. -- role^player 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR for Latter Days

See here Wikipedia:Featured article review/Latter Days/archive1. TCO (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for help: James Barry (surgeon)

Hello,

In an article on a man thought to be trans, James Barry (surgeon), another editor is attempting to revert use of the neutral terms "assigned female at birth" and "female-assigned" to "born female" and "female-born", the latter of which reflects a particular POV about trans people: specifically, that the sex assigned to a person at birth by a third party is real and authoritative.

I had made the correction while not remembering that about a year ago, the same editor had reverted similar edits by me. At this point I don't have the energy to address these edits, which were accompanied by some pretty transphobic (IMO) comments on the article talk page. Still, I don't really want to let it slide. If anyone who watches this page is interested in either having a discussion with this editor, or starting the mediation process if that isn't effective, see the end of Talk:James Barry (surgeon).

Thanks. SparsityProblem (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deprecation of "LGBT" in Wikipedia article space

As the article LGBT makes abundantly clear, this initialism is

• a neologism (since about 1990)
• expresses a political bias (political correctness, gay rights activism)
• is far from widely accepted outside the interest groups in question
• is far from universally accepted even within the groups in question

See also here. I think it is clear that within our policies of WP:NAME, WP:UE and WP:NPOV, use of "LGBT" in Wikipedia's voice and especially in article titles and category names needs to be deprecated.

I understand that there is a long history of this acronym being used, and I understand that this observation is not going to be popular in a Wikiproject that itself uses "LGBT" to define its scope. Nevertheless you will need to recognize, with some intellectual honesty, that the reason this acronym is so widespread on Wikipedia is a vast systemic bias of homosexuality related topics being edited by members of the LGBT community in the United States. In my view this is a severe case of "regional bias" and will need to be counter-acted making a conscious effort to maintain geographical and ideological neutrality. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing something in particular? An organized effort to remove "LGBT" from all or some LGBT-related articles?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view about using "LGBT". In some articles, in some contexts, it is inappropriate to use "LGBT". I'm in the middle (or the end, I hope) of a ridiculous discussion on my talk page about replacing "gay community" in the Stonewall riots article to "queer community", which is an entirely different concept--one that has been formed within the past 10 years or so--and thus inaccurate and revisionist when placed in an article addressing the people in Greenwich Village in 1969.

As for the vast systemic bias...well, no. I disagree with that. In my experience, editors who prefer to use "LGBT" than a more contextually appropriate term, very much like most Wikipedians, do more small gnome-like edits and neglect to consider the entirety of the subject, article, and sources when making these changes. In no way is this endemic to WP:LGBT. This happens all over the site. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hear your argument for intellectual deprecation to maintain geographical neutrality, although you are mistaken as LGBT has widespread use in the UK too. I can't speak for other English-speaking people however. As it stands LGBT is a term of convenience because any other descriptive you could use carries with it ideology, geographic bias and intellectual inaccuracies. I'm curious to learn what you are proposing to change the descriptive to therefore. -- role^player 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The term "political correctness" itself reflects a particular ideological bias, just so you're aware. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not a member of this project, but had this page on my watchlist because of an earlier conversation, and hence saw this topic heading. I don't really have anything to add to this discussion (except to note that I don't think using the term LGBT necessarily expresses a political bias, as the term is quite widespread), but I'm quite confused about Dbachmann's claim that using the term somehow violates WP:UE. What language, if not English, is "LGBT" supposed to be? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• for what it's worth, "LGBT" (and its variants) is not a "term" at all....it's an "acronym" for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender". i fail to see how anyone can infer any political correctness from its use. --emerson7 02:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's an initialism, because you can't pronounce it. NATO is an acronym, FBI and LGBT are initialisms - Professor Pedanticus, aka GuillaumeTell 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Dbachmann has also raised the same issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, as well as on several article talk pages: Talk:LGBT, Talk:Violence against LGBT people, Talk:Significant acts of violence against LGBT people. Siawase (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that until Dbachmann makes a suggestion about what term(s) to use instead, we should leave the term alone. Give us some substitutes and then we can discuss whether/when they're more appropriate than LGBT. I don't know of any other term that covers the scope of sexual orientation issues as well, and the accusation that this term reflects a pro-homo bias makes me fear that the editor wants to give equal time to anti-gay editors. What term do people who are "neutral" about LGBT issues use instead? (Similarly, I'd like to recommend that we never use "America" to mean "the USA" on the same grounds that it's a regional bias--but can you think of a better term for "Americans"?) Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of writers

I've noticed some redundancy in categorization that might be solved by some reorganization/streamlining. For example, Chester Kallman is in both Category:LGBT writers from the United States and Category:Gay writers. Would it be more precise if those two categories were removed from this and similar articles and replaced with a single new one, Category:Gay writers from the United States, which could be created as a subcat of (new) Category:Gay writers by country and (existing) Category:LGBT writers from the United States ? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The category in question is part of a much larger categorization structure, Category:LGBT people by occupation. Breaking down one would IMHO necessitate breaking down all of them and I have no interest in doing or helping with the work that would be needed to make that happen. I don't personally have an issue with there being two categories, Gay (occupation) and LGBT (occupation from country). I Want My GayTV (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias, POV and 1950s American anti-gay propaganda claims at the Anal sex article

I need outside editors to weigh in on the following matter: Talk:Anal sex#This entry is extremely bias, POV and reads like a 1950's American propaganda against homosexuality.

Right now, an editor is insisting that certain things be removed due to feeling that the article is anti-gay and a target for anti-gay pundits. The editor is also pretty convinced that I am either anti-gay or that I hate gay men who have anal sex, despite my various contributions to LGBT topics at Wikipedia. Thus, only outside editors will be able to help sort all this out. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More info wanted on views of anal sex from around the world

The Anal sex article could use some help in expanding its section on various views from around the world--especially in Hinduism and amongst the various African and Native American traditions. Help?? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD for LGBT topics and Shinto

Please chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT topics and Shinto. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject for Women's History

Please consider supporting the WikiProject proposal for WikiProject Women's History. and/or contributing to it. We're trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of women's history from around the world. Thanks. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 05:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Travesti

The Spanish and Portuguese articles on this topic have much more information and lots of references. Can anyone translate the information and put it into the Travesti article? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A source: Bible and homosexuality

Hi! I found:

• Knust, Jennifer Wright. "My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality." CNN. February 9, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Family Research Council

Hello, there is a discussion relevant to this WikiProject going on here whether the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has added the Family Research Council to their hate-group listing should be in the introduction of the article or not. Please see the discussion and consider the arguments for or against this inclusion there. Thanks, -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach

I'm surprised that there hasn't been an article on him here. Most highly decorated officer to be booted under DADT... though I see on the news today that he's being allowed to retire with full pension. Anyone want to get together on this? Jademushroom (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

quick wording and citation work on a college LGBT flap

• Westmont College#Treatment_of_homosexual_students

I just wrote the basics, I'm sure there is much more (when was the "code" adopted?), and my writing style is mediocre. What makes this story is how alumni and faculty are coming together- hopefully they will effect change at one small school. tedder (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Need gay male images at two articles

There's debate in these two articles about why photos of women are used when those of gay men might also be used Talk:Bukkake#Images_2 or be more appropriate Talk:Snowballing_(sexual_practice)#RfC_on_image. If you know where to get such images usable here, please help out. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussions needing input

There are discussions on Talk:World_War_II#homosexual (and Talk:Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust#Use_of_.27homosexual.27) which are within the scope of this WikiProject and could use input. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Amber Heard

There's a discussion at Talk:Amber Heard regarding her sexual identity that could be of interest to members of this project. Siawase (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Brighton Ourstory

A reference to Brighton Ourstory was deleted in 2006. It is a Brighton(UK)-orientated LBG history group, and registered charity, that has been going since 1989. It has authored one book 'Daring Hearts' and co-authored another 'Just take your frock off'. I am a director of Ourstory so there is a conflict of interest with me creating the article. Details of the group can be found at http://www.brightonourstory.co.uk. Alfinbrighton (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Source Help Needed: Corporate Equality Index

Hey everyone!

I'm a sophomore James Madison University student, and am new to Wikipedia. My class has started a project on U.S. Public Policy and I am having trouble finding sources for my article, the Corporate Equality Index. Most of the sources that I've been able to find on the CEI are from the HRC website, and I'm afraid that this will make my article biased. Can anyone help me to find some other credible sources? Also, can anyone tell me how to start a new line of text without adding a bullet point?

• Thank you!
• Myersde (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You can start a new line line this

Or like this (and so on ad infinitum)

Or this

Or this.... (pretend to edit this section and you'll see how I did it)

Can't help just now about Corporate Equality, but I'm actually a Wikipedia Online Ambassador, so feel free to ask questions at my Talk page. --GuillaumeTell 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Heyas! I'm the former president of the Purdue University Queer Student Union.

1) Google the organization "Out for Work"... I'm not sure if they explicitly say so, but their members at the MBLGTACC (Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference) two years ago at IU had a discussion of the pros and cons of using CEI as a guideline.

2) I have some research before for use to advise Purdue's Center for Career Opportunities organization. Here is Purdue CCO's handbook, which is unfortunately sparse, but I'll look for some more from the website. I crafted a protocol for joint QSU-CCO sponsored event known as "To Be or Not To Be Out at Work", and we specifically discuss CEI, but it's not posted to the website. I'm emailing the director to encourage the protocol to be posted.

https://www.cco.purdue.edu/Common/CCOJobSearchManual.pdf

Jademushroom (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys so much! This information is really helpful!

Myersde (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Executive order 11478

Dear LGBT studies, I am writing an article for my schools project under USPP:WP and the topic is Executive order 11478. Do you have any suggestions about what should be in the article according to LGBT groups? I wrote all of the sections of the order but not sure what else to include. Hope you all are having a great week. Thank you, Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woloshkm (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! It's great to see students involved in editing. For convenience, here's a link to the article: Executive Order 11478

In my opinion, the article could be improved by more information on:

• History leading up to the original executive order. Were there specific groups pushing for this? Opposing it?
• Immediate reactions: Did anyone notable have anything to say when it was passed?
• Similar information for the two amendments
• I vaguely remember hearing some controversy over enforcement of the sexual orientation provision during the George W. Bush administration. If such a controversy indeed occurred and was related to this executive order, that would be useful to discuss in the article.

Happy editing! --Alynna (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fannie Flagg

I don't have access to the relevant sources, but this[2] might be of interest to members of this project. Siawase (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Frot#New section for frot vs anal debate

Thoughts are needed on this matter. It has been opened for WP:RfC, but WP:RfC didn't work too well for this article recently and hasn't worked that well for other topics on sexuality lately (from what I've seen anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Template sidebar move: LGBT to LGBTQ

The template sidebar used on many LGBT related articles was changed between 19 & 21 February from "Template:LGBT sidebar" to "Template:LGBTQ sidebar", to include the term Genderqueer. Potentially controversial changes should be discussed beforehand, but there appears to have been no discussion, either before or since. The associated Talkpage redirects here: Template talk:LGBT. Is everyone happy with this? Daicaregos (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LGBT as an initialism has a much more widespread usage:

• 12,300,000 ghits for LGBT
• 1,200,000 ghits for LGBTQ

It should therefore stand to reason that LGBT should take precedence over LGBTQ. I am therefore not particularly impressed that this has been done without discussion. -- role^player 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you, and other members of this project, would like to comment on that Talkpage. I don't feel qualified to pass comment, but wanted to bring it to your attention, as the change seemed rather radical to me. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Undo it. No bloating, or soon we'll be dealing with FABGLITTER.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it back pending discussion. This discussion is copied & pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to Template talk:LGBT sidebar. Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming discussion

I would like to draw attention this discussion about a proposed renaming of Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage (and similar categories) as editors here may have views which have not so far been expressed there. It is important that any objections are raised in the discussion, but voices of support for the change are also welcome! Geometry guy 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feel like Wiki-Gnoming?

If anyone feels like Wiki-Gnoming a bit, I've put together a List of Stub-Class LGBT Articles. I noticed that about two-thirds of the articles in our project are Stub class or Start class, so I'm going to go through them to see if they really *are* that class, or if they can be upgraded. Swing through the list, pick a few and review, and remove them from the list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LGBT related deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fistgate --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball

I was curious if this project would consider the netball and netball in the Cook Islands articles as part of the scope of their project's content? There are some parts that deal with gender issues and transgendered and transexual players. --LauraHale (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bisexuality#Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited"

Editors are needed to weigh in on this. It has to do with having a section on the belief that people must be equally sexually to both sexes in order to be bisexual, and whether or not the controversial study by Bailey should be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Help please

I am trying to start an article about the character Ian Gallagher from the US TV show Shameless. I have provided a number of reliable sources to show that this character is worthy of an article but I'm getting ganged up on by three people who insist that it's not. I can't figure out why a number of independent sources don't satisfy their demands but please, look at the article, look at the sources, and don't let bigots destroy a legitimate article about a gay character. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'd work a bit on improving the article to talk about main stream acceptance of the character to further enhance notability. --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub Review

The "A" section has been completed. Any help would be appreciated reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Stub_review_2011, making sure entries in the list are "Stub" and/or re-assessing them as necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge Hawaiian articles?

I don't have the time or inclination right now to puzzle out all the steps that would be involved in merging Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii and Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii, but I think it would be a good thing to do, don't y'all?

For what it's worth, IMO it would also be good to rename a lot of articles that have wordy titles like "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . ." to simply "Civil unions in . . ." or whatever. Just sayin'. Textorus (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I see that LGBT rights in Maryland contains only two short, anemic paragraphs, and ought to be merged IMO with Recognition of same-sex unions in Maryland, a substantial article. I'd do it myself but I don't know the procedure. Anyone? Textorus (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Merging. Have fun! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but not going there. Not fun. Textorus (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What does T cover, anyway?

Should an article about a woman who disguised herself in men's clothes to take a round-the-world trip - with no mention of her sexual orientation or identity at all, except being a man's mistress - be tagged for the LGBT Project? See the Jeanne Baré article. Textorus (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Other articles that fall in to this category often have the "Cross-dressers" category on them, which loosely fits into tho "T" section of our project space. That doesn't mean it should, just that I've seen that happening. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources about LGBT health

• Young, Saundra. "Experts: Little known about LGBT health." CNN. March 31, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please......

Update Joseph Hansen's page to include all of the gay-themed books including Living Upstairs, Jack of Hearts, A Smile In His Lifetime and The Cutbank Path.

The current page is more like a boring profile of a crime writer, than the much-celebrated author and contributor to gay literature.

I would do it myself but I always seem to get edited back to the bare wood.

Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.157.162 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Transgendered novels

Can you recommend anyone non-explicit novels that have a transgendered character as a main character? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "non-explicit", but Jake Greenleaf (female>male) is a main character in Armistead Maupin's Mary Ann in Autumn, and Anna Madrigal (male>female), who also appears in the book, is a recurring character in many of Maupin's Tales of the City series. Hope this helps. --GuillaumeTell 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Almost Perfect," by Brian Katcher, is written for teenagers, and isn't sexually explicit. It's brand new, and I liked it a lot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series)

Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) go under the category Botswana LGBT-related_television_programs since one the main characters is gay and IMDB lists as Botswana as one of countries of origin. Please tell me your opinion. Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is one of the main characters gay? The article doesn't say anything about that as far as I can see, and I don't recall any gay characters in the books... though I confess I haven't seen the series. Is there a category for Botswana LGBT-related television programs? Are there any other programs in the category? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No opinion on the category, but one of the main characters is indeed gay. I'll see if I can find a ref for that. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) No specifics given re character, but this might help. Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Someone knowledgeable and with access to good sources might like to check out LGBT rights in Afghanistan. Over the past several days, an editor went through several similar articles, changing the legal status information. All but one of those changes were reverted, but Afghanistan remains; it wasn't sourced to begin with, and I can't find anything that looks terribly reliable. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion by an editor at the Heterosexualization article

Editors are needed to weigh in on this issue: Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue. An editor (Masculinity), one I have long viewed as problematic in his editing, removed reliably sourced and relevant material from the article all because he feels the article is too associated with LGBT issues. Because of this, I have restored the article prior to his changes. He may revert me or continue deleting, however, and I do not feel like battling/arguing with him. At least not alone. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Paul Broussard

This article mentions that several of the men convicted in this murder had parole hearings in 2009. However, there is no mention of the results of those parole hearings. I'm not sure of where to look for this information, but perhaps some users who are more involved in this Wikiproject will have knowledge of good sources of information.--SargentIV (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Transgender tax collectors in Pakistan

I found:

• Walsh, Nick Paton. "Pakistan's transgender tribe of tax collectors." CNN. April 14, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Born male"/"female" vs. "Assigned male (female) at birth"?

I'm an infrequent contributor these days, and am wondering whether any consensus has been reached about the use of the phrases "born male" and "born females" in articles about self-identified trans people. IMO, "assigned male at birth" or "assigned female at birth" has a greater degree of NPOV, as it's hard to dispute that a person typically assigns a sex to a newborn infant, and these phrases do not reflect the POV that the sex a person is assigned at birth reflects some sort of innate truth about the person. However, I've been attacked for making such edits before, and it would be nice if there was something I could point to. Any thoughts? Has this already been discussed? SparsityProblem (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, using 'assigned at birth' is more POV, as it attempts to use terminology to push an agenda. In these cases, shouldn't we be using the scientific or operational definition, rather than a fluid definition of gender? From the Male article:

Accordingly, sex is defined operationally across species by the type of gametes produced (i.e.: spermatozoa vs. ova) and differences between males and females in one lineage are not always predictive of differences in another.

Unless there is an additional circumstance that warrants it (born with a genetic or physical sexual abnormality), I think it is best to use 'born male' or 'born female' to indicate the scientific description of their birth genitalia. That's the only NPOV way to handle it IMO, and would be consistent across all individuals, whether LGBT or not. Would you use the 'assigned at birth' terminology for individuals who are not trans-gender, or the simpler 'are male/female'? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that neither is entirely NPOV. "Born (fe)male" inescapably implies that a transgender person who had "male" written on their birth certificate was in some sense actually male at birth, when there's at least a very good argument to be made that they were born in fact with ambiguous gender. On the other hand, while "assigned (fe)male at birth" avoids this issue, and is on the surface more neutral, the very unusualness of the phrasing strongly implies that there was something wrong with this assignment, even if that implication isn't necessarily intended. So both options have problems. And because the problem in the second case derives from the unusualness of the phrasing, and since there's only really one normal way to put it, there's not an easy way out. I'd lean towards "assigned (fe)male at birth". Sure, we wouldn't say it of non-transgender people, but that's because we can be more concise when this issue's irrelevant. garik (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That said, if we're talking about biological sex, rather than gender, then "born (fe)male" is in many cases of transgender people perfectly fine, given a standard definition of how biological sex is defined. So that's fine, provided it's clear we're talking about sex, not gender. garik (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sex assignment is the scientific and social/legal term for the process, so we should use "assigned." That's why some trans and intersex people later have sex reassignment. Some of the confusion within the LGBT community regarding this trans-related issue is because "born gay" or "born that way" appeals to some as a counterpoint to the term "lifestyle choice." The same is true with names. We should not say a trans person was "born John Smith" if we are using an old name. They were assigned that name after birth, usually at the same time they were assigned a sex. Jokestress (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "biological sex" is itself ideological. Unfortunately, from this discussion it appears that this is a topic where people confuse espousing a majority ideology with being NPOV, so I don't plan to pursue it further. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is describing 'has male/female genitals' in a concise, yet NPOV manner. I'm not sure what you mean by biological sex being ideological, wouldn't 'born biologically male' (with link to appropriate WP article defining the term) be adequate? Bakkster Man (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; I think the problem is (a) the assumption that there is something called "biological sex" that is determinable by an observer's inspection of an infant's external genitalia *and* (b) the insistence that this assumption is a fact rather than an opinion. This assumption is part of a particular POV. It happens to be a majority POV in my culture. But that doesn't make it neutral. A different POV is that a trans woman (that is, a woman who was assigned male at birth) is biologically female because her brain is female (determined the same way we routinely attribute gender in everyday life: self-reporting of her subjective experience of consciousness, which people often communicate in ways such as wearing certain clothes or styling their hair a certain way) and brains are biological. This is, of course, also a POV. But it is no more or less neutral than the dominant POV.

In short, the use of "biological" to refer to genitalia exclusively, without regard to the brain, hormonal status, or (in some cases, such as some intersex people) chromosomal type reflects a certain ideology about gender. SparsityProblem (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. In that case, perhaps there is a better way to take the operational definition from the male/female articles? Would 'anatomically male/female' make more sense, since this is generally where the gender assignment stems from anyway? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bakkster: Of course it would be correct to use "assigned at birth" for cissexual people, but there's rarely a need to do so because cis people have a gender that's the same as the one they were assigned at birth. The reason it comes up with trans people is that their gender is different from the gender they were assigned at birth, thus the need to distinguish. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this doesn't address the specific question head-on, but it might still be of some help: GLAAD Media Reference Guide. Siawase (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure citing an advocacy group on terminology is much good in a debate on which terminology is NPOV, unless those on the other side of the topic agree on the terms. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To me (and this is just my opinion), this is one of those cases where the more accurate terminology is unusually phrased (to most people), which makes it look like the worst kind of political correctness. In my current cultural sphere, it's perfectly normal to ask someone what pronoun they prefer. However, in the dominant culture, that question raises eyebrows at least, and hackles (or fists) at worst. So rather than go with the unusual phrasing, I feel the least intrusive (but still informative) phrasing is the way to go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Politically correct" is another term for "respectful", so I would ask: (a) does "the worst kind of respect" sound funny to you? And, (b) which Wikipedia policy says that we should endeavor to avoid respectful terminology? If anything, I'd think the rules point towards the opposite. SparsityProblem (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That may have been the original meaning. In my opinion, there is such a thing as too much political correctness. As an example, I would much rather be called gay or queer rather than the more politically correct "man who loves men". Using a phrase that is obfuscatingly verbose is not respectful - it's obfuscatingly verbose. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your personal preferences, I would ask that you refrain from using a phrase in Wikipedia discussions that is considered a silencing tactic, as silencing just doesn't seem civil to me. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Something I would like to discuss

In the tv series The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) BK is a single gay man. Here's proof: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml I think The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) should be listed under List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters. Is that ok? Neptunekh2 (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

More opinions please

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not?. Jnast1 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

John-Manuel Andriote

This article appears to be an autobiography which I understand is something that is strongly discouraged. I think that there's reason for an article about the author but I have reservations about the article as it stands. I'm a newbie and would like some suggestions as to how I might handle this or should I just do nothing? Pjefts (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have edited it for style and content, though it appears pretty clear to me that it has been copied and pasted from somewhere. I shall do some investigation work on the original version of the article and see if I can dig up where it has come from. -- role^player 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this I wasn't sure how to handle it. You've really cleaned up the text. I've added one citation and I'll do my best to add some more.Pjefts (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See this. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is just the draft that an editor wrote before s/he created the John-Manuel Andriote entry at the end of Jan. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant see this. Rivertorch (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Opinions are needed on whether or not the Sexual intercourse article should lean mostly toward human sexual intercourse. One view is that since "sexual intercourse" mostly refers to humans and we have other articles to cover sexual activity of non-human animals (such as Animal sexual behavior), then it is fine that the article mostly leans towards humans, similar to the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. The other view is that humans should not be given so much weight, since the term "sexual intercourse" also refers to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move for an article on this WikiProject

A Requested Move discussion is in progress for moving Defense of marriage amendment to State amendments banning same-sex unions. Please consider commenting. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BOT failure

On an unrelated note, the new article bot doesn't seem to be functioning. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot is one of many that have failed. You can read a little about it HERE. Not clear when/if it will come back. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's a shame. Thanks for letting me know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

At least we're not alone -- one of many projects affected. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

Does anyone else feel states like Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and Maine should be just one color? I think once we are at the point where civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, it isn't necessary to note that marriage is banned by statute, or there is no specific prohibition or recognition of marriage. CTJF83 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is a bad idea. You are confusing this map with File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg. Samesex marriage in USA.svg is designed to depict both positive and negative rights. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean why do we need light pink when it is a different color too? Just a statue ban is no big deal to list, if unions or domestic partnerships are legal. CTJF83 01:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to the people in those states who want to get married. Any ban is significant. Understanding if a ban is statute based or constitution based is an important detail. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is also discussed on the current us same sex marriage map under a striping discussion header. See davei post that agrees with what thegrey said174.253.195.75 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The map lists pretty much all the available rights, but marriage is the legally most valuable and the map was created to give an overview over SSMs, so I think the stripes should stay. You can always create a derivative work with your desired parameters if it suits a purpose on Wikipedia. Hekerui (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm satisfied with these responses, thanks guys/gals. CTJF83 11:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jean Acker

The Birth date and death dates under the picture are wrong and need to be fixed.

(October 23, 1893 – August 16, 1978)is in the header however under the picture it has

birth as 2001 and death as 2014 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.226.18 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle#Initial post. HairyWombat 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why can't this project be three distinct projects, namely Male Homosexuality, Female Homosexuality and Transgenderism? (Bisexuality would fall under homosexuality.) Why can't male homosexuality and homosexual males be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia without transgenderism being referenced (in the "See also" section, on the talk page or by some other link to "LGBT" when only male homosexuality itself needs to be referenced)? Why can't homosexuality have its own articles but has to share articles with transgenderism? For instance, the article LGBT themes in mythology really makes clear how forced merging coverage of the two phenomena is, being awkard, disjointed and at places unclear. Just because homosexuals and transgenders have united politically in some cases doesn't mean the two distinct phenomena should be conflated everywhere on Wikipedia. I don't see how usability is enhanced by the conflation or how the topics are related enough to merit it any other way. Instead, I only see male homosexuality forced into an offensive meta-category (which seems to push a bigoted association between homosexuality and transgenderism). The status quo may even be detrimental to Wikipedia: It's likely that many editors would participate in a Male Homosexuality project who are presently put off by the current project. I would also like to point out that a particular subculture that is typified by homosexuality cannot lay claim to all homosexuality and homosexuals.

Even if the project isn't going to be split, many current LGBT articles still should be. LGBT themes in mythology stands out. (I've proposed this on the talk page without a response.) I mean, why not merge Frot and Sex reassignment surgery? It makes as much sense. And precise terms in articles as gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, etc. should be preferred wherever appropriate to LGBT. In the article Beard, I changed "LGBT culture" to "gay culture" and had it reverted.

(I've brought this up three other times on talk pages: Talk:LGBT rights, at Talk:LGBT themes in mythology and at Talk:LGBT.) 75.132.142.26 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Martha Shelley

Would someone take a look at this article? and remove the banner? Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Pjefts (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (sexual neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Two of my articles have been put up for deletion, which are infact pages about significant things in the LGBT scene in India. The issues raised that they are not notable enough. But look at R. Raj Rao's page, which is put up for deletion. He is well known in the literary circle as the LGBT voice of India and his books are being used in LGBT studies, which I cited with references in the article. And the other article is on a movie Do Paise Ki Dhoop,Char Aane Ki Barish, directed by a very mainstream actress, with very popular actors, which is again a significant achievement, for the queer themes movies in the past, in India, has usually had relatively unknown actors and directors, making up a very mediocre film, leaving it an obligation on the part of the queer folks to watch it. Help needed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Adopt a state

The full series of entries "LGBT rights in..." has been created. Many are just placeholders in need of update & review. If you take a look, you'll find some surprises. Wyoming is quite well developed. Vermont is skimpy. Far too many reference HRC's survey of state laws when local sources would be preferable. Most would benefit from having links in other entries pointing to them, so as to help drive traffic to them and attract more editors. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay Liberation Front

This article needs to be separated into one about the GLF which was formed in New York immediately after the Stonewall riots and another about the British GLF. As it stands the notes/references within the article are confusing as are the external links as to which organization they source. I'll work on it but would like some input as to where to start. Pjefts (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuals or homosexual people

This issue has been raised in an edit change at Genderqueer from genderqueers to genderqueer people. Please contribute to the discussion on that article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang. There is a proposal to remove an article from the template. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

• Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

New article, of interest to project members. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently expanded article

Skipping Towards Gomorrah - I recently expanded this article. Check it out, if you are interested. Feel free to suggest additional secondary sources, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

LGBT sportspeople

I converted List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople from a two-column list to one that resembles the various lists of LGB people. If anyone's looking for a project, the chart can use some filling in and some images could be found or transplanted from existing articles. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage

• The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

One of the articles was related to LGBT studies:

1. Corbin Fisher

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute at Femininity

I am involved in a 2-person dispute at Femininity. The dispute is about the main image and whether "effeminophobia" should be discussed in the article or if that's POV. If anyone could add to the discussion and help resolve this dispute, it would be really appreciated.--Aronoel (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about same-sex marriage by Dan Savage

• The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage

• It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living

Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of LGB people

I was looking at a couple of these and they all cite a Pew study from 2003. I can't believe there isn't something more recent that could be used instead but some casual Googling on my part doesn't turn anything up that's global. Anyone else think they might have better luck? Harley Hudson (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• This Advocate article links to a global report that would probably be useful. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List Peer Review - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

This page is undergoing a List Peer Review, feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

• Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting (as several editors have indeed noted on that talk page) that this is in fact a proposal to delete the article in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New article - The Kid (musical)

• The Kid (musical)

New article, The Kid (musical). Feedback and suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gay Pride Day?

It should be possible to organize a Gay Pride Day for Wikipedia's Did You Know?. However, nobody has started a section for it this year on DYK.

(Kahn's article is too early for Labor Day, the USA Holiday.)

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nepal legalizes "third sex"

• Shrestha, Manesh. "Nepal census recognizes 'third gender'." CNN. May 31, 2011.

This is an interesting news story about Nepal and LGBT rights. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne

This article is about an LGBT rally in Portland, Oregon in response to an assault on a gay couple. I will let project members decide if it is worth adding the WikiProject LGBT studies template to the talk page or not, but I would love for members to offer any feedback they may have about the article itself. Feel free to expand or offer suggestions/comments, if interested. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender Bending Books

Does anyone know of any books that have a gender bending theme with a fantasy theme like a guy reincarnated as a girl or a guy and girl switching bodies? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Virgina Woolf's novel Orlando: A Biography immediately comes to mind. Pjefts (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein's I Will Fear No Evil springs to mine. – iridescent 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light has some 2-gender bending reincarnation. It's a hoot, also!

Without reincarnation: Ursula K. Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness is the most famous gender-bending science-fiction novel. The forgettable 4th or 5th Dune book has some gender-role reversals. (C.f., the Polish film, Sex Mission and the John Saxon film Planet Earth).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari

Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article.

prominent Syrian blogger known for her open writing about being a lesbian [..] reported abducted on 06 June 2011 and her whereabouts are currently unknown

Please help.

 Chzz  ►  21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

You may be interested in the new biography of Tom Kahn, whose was a gay social-democrat and AFL-CIO leader. His homosexuality was barely notable (mainly because of an earlier relation with Bayard Rustin), as far as I can see. In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and tak, Kiefer, for this excellent biography. I've already sent it to a number of friends. Did I miss the reference to Kahn being gay? Since he was so active in political causes did he ever come out for gay civil rights? Pjefts (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote about Kahn's coming out---my guess is these events happened in the mid-late 1950s:

Although everyone active in the movement was aware of it, he was never explicitly out of the closet. He took his sexual orientation as an affliction, a source of pain and embarrassment. In part, perhaps, because he was so unreconciled to his longings, he limited himself for a long time to brief encounters. But then he became involved with one of the YPSL’s and was compelled to seek the counsel of a psychiatrist to explain his unfamiliar feelings. The diagnosis, he told me, was “you’re in love.”

• Muravchik, Joshua (January 2006). "Comrades". Commentary Magazine. Retrieved 15 June 2007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.

I added a quotation from Kahn, where he obliquely refers to having his eyes opened by Bayard Rustin, among other things to "pleasures". This was quoted by Rachel Horowitz (but I was too lazy to add a footnote with the page number).

Horowitz's remembrance and the NYT obituary notice that he was survived by his partner, whose name I did not include on WP, particularly because the partner seems to have been a private person; Horowitz noted that the partner's support and stability was (of course, but I like to note here) invaluable to Kahn in life and when he learned he had HIV.

Because the indomitable and graceful Bayard Rustin was publicly gay since the 1950s (or before), the three (at last count) biographies of Rustin must mention his partner (at least for a significant period) Kahn. Of course, John D'Emilio's biography would have the most extensive discussion of intimate matters, but I haven't read it, I confess.

I hope that it is not offensive to remark that there may have been some kind of party/dinner in honor of Rustin and Kahn and a 3rd openly homosexual man, which was called "fruits of labor" informally, by people who loved and admired the three. (Now, it sounds juvenile and possibly offensive, if one doesn't know the person who told me.)

Horowitz noted that Kahn's boss, George Meany, gave a speech gay-baiting the Democratic Party for meeting in San Fransisco, and states bluntly that it would have been impossible for Kahn to have ghost-written that speech. However, it may be worthwhile mentioning this discussion.

This is what Horowitz wrote:

[George Meany] read all sorts of statistics about the unrepresentative character of the l972 Democratic convention including that there was only one labor speaker, I.W.Abel. And then he said, ‘We heard from abortionists, and we heard from the people who looked like Jacks, acted like Jills and had the odor of Johns about them.’

Maurice Isserman (op. cit., p. 298) says Kahn wrote those words. His source for that is John Herling's Labor Letter (September 12, 1972).

What Herling actually wrote in that letter, however, was very different. All that he reported was that Meany said those words and nobody denies that.

It is in fact inconceivable that Kahn would have written them. Indeed, Meany had two other speech writers at the time and Al Barkan's COPE Department often prepared material for him, so there were at least three other possible authors.

Isserman, as Arch Puddington put it, ‘assumes that because Kahn was not publicly gay he had to be a gay basher. He never was.’ (E-mail to the author, January, 18, 2000)

Jack Newfield repeats the same charge, naming Michael Harrington as the source of the speech (without mentioning Herling) on page 66 of his autobiography (2003), which I've removed. It would be irresponsible to repeat Isserman's charge without investigating the original documentation, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Horowitz begins her biography of Kahn with a discussion of (dysfunction) at his adoptive family, which left him with a hatred of secrecy, so I believe that Kahn would have lived openly as soon as he came to terms with himself. I recommend Horowitz's biography as one of the greatest acts of friendship I have ever read: It is so honest and direct and lovely.

(Horowitz deserves her own biography, for her contributions to civil rights and to the labor movement---director of politics for AFT, etc..)

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add some material to the article in regards Tom's history with the LID especially in regards the beginning of SDS...Todd Gitlin's book and Kirkland Sale's document it. I've ordered a copy of D'Emilio's bio of Rustin from my library..since Tom never publicly identified as a gay man or wrote about LGBT topics (though I think I would have done a bang up job if he had) I'm not sure I'm comfortable categorizing him as a "Gay Writer" or a "Gay Politican"...as an aside I find it sort of ironic that Tom was so helpful to the rise of Lech Walesa who I believe is virulently anti-gay. Pjefts (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pjefts!

Just make sure that it's not undue weight. My understanding, based on repeated statements by Harrington, was that Harrington was the LID "enforcer" in conflicts with anti-anticommunist SDS. I thought that Kahn was devoted to civil rights work during the early 1960s, and I suspect that his role in LID was much less than in civil rights.

I would suggest that you exercise extreme caution using the journalist Kirkpatrick Sales's book on SDS, given how negative he was towards Michael Harrington (unlike Todd Gitlin and Steve Max, who presumably were more informed). Gitlin is not a historian but I think you can trust his judgement or reporting on things; I would be cautious about anything that does not reference primary sources or secondary sources though, even if Gitlin is much more careful than most sociologists. I believe that D'Emilio is a historian and should be careful with sources, and so his book should be the most reliable; he is of course more interested in sexuality than the other writers we've mentioned. Isserman has a discussion of Kahn that should be well documented; his interests in social history and the CPUSA and then in Harrington would suggest that he might not view Kahn with the warmth, at least initially, but he is a careful historian, I have been told by a professional historian.

I don't understand what you mean by stating that Kahn never publicly identified as a gay man. His homosexuality and previous relation with Rustin were public and written about.

Regarding Categories: Kahn was a gay man who was a writer and a political leader (politician?): I didn't check the criteria for these categories, and you should correct me if I was incorrect, of course.

Lech Walesa was a leader by his own merits, without Kahn's help. Maybe Polish communists did not arrest young gays and make them break rocks like Cuba's communists did, but I suspect that liberalization and democratization did help gays in Poland.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pride at Work and Kahn

I should confess some Original Research about Pride at Work and Kahn. I am unaware of off-WP references linking Kahn and Pride at Work.

I hope that somebody can find documentation. (Otherwise, I should have to remove the link, despite its value to readers of the article.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I hid the OR.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay relationships

I wrote the following paragraphs. I am unfamiliar with the conventions of biographies of openly gay men who were public figures, but whose sexuality was not part of their public personas. Your corrections would be appreciated. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He accepted his appointment as Director of the AFL–CIO's Department of International Affairs, despite his having HIV. Kahn was an openly gay man, whose sexuality was unrelated to his public notability. As a young man Tom Kahn "was gay but wanted to be straight .... It was a different world then", according to Rachell Horowitz.

However, "once he met Bayard [Rustin], then Kahn knew that he was gay and had this long-term relationship with Bayard, which went through many stages", according to Horowitz, who quoted Kahn's remembrance of Rustin:

When I met him for the first time he was a few years younger than I am now, and I was barely on the edge of manhood. He drew me into a vortex of his endless campaigns and projects.... He introduced me to Bach and Brahms, and to the importance of maintaining a balance in life between the pursuit of our individual pleasures and engagements in, and responsibility for, the social condition. He believed that no class, caste or genre of people were exempt from this obligation.

However, cohabiting in Rustin's apartment proved to be difficult, and their romantic relationship ended when Kahn enrolled in Howard University. They remained life-long friends and political comrades.

Tom Kahn was "very good looking, a very attractive guy" according to socialist David McReynolds. Tom Kahn died from AIDS in Silver Springs, Maryland in 1992, at the age of 53, being cared for and survived by his partner of many years.

DYK

This will run in the next day or so. I expanded a section called "relationships" at the end of the article, and I request your help with vetting my non-expert writing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• ... that Tom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor-union Solidarity in 1979–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie's warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion?