Open main menu
LGBT was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
January 25, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Contents

Challenging the history of the termEdit

The first sentence of section #History of the term currently says, "Before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, there was no common non-derogatory vocabulary for non-heterosexuality" but I don't believe this is accurate. The terms "sexual inversion" (for the state) and "invert" (for the person) were used in 19th century in medical references, and by the early 20th century, in popular literature, such as Well of Loneliness. The term uranian was also used, but it was never common, I believe.

Later in that section, there is the claim that the term homophile "replaced" homosexual in the 1950s and 1960s, but it never replaced it, they coexisted, with the latter being over a hundred times more common, and the former being relegated primarily to insider groups and entirely unknown to the public.

Something else that is not made clear by this section and perhaps should be, is that the term "heterosexuality" only came to be used as a counterpoint to the term "homosexuality" (both coined by translators of von Krafft Ebbing around 1892) and whose usage always lagged behind that of "homosexual". This is a standard type of development in language, where the unmarked term doesn't "need" to exist, until the variant is recognized and defined. The same thing happened with "transgender" (c. 1965) and "cisgender" (1990s).

Later in the section, it says that, "From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States," but U.S. usage precedes that. See for example, Nakayama (1980),[1] and usage in scholarly articles trails activist usage. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the term did not originally have any negative connotations; it was a term used in medical, psychological, and legal circumstances. The first two paragraphs of this section seem all wrong, and should be removed or rewritten. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the section's lead sentence, which had been tagged {{dubious}} since July 2017. Two other issues still tagged "dubious" remain in this section, for now. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Unarchived on 11:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. Mathglot (talk)
Unarchived on 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. (added DNAU.) Mathglot (talk)

References

  1. ^ Nakayama, T. (1980). "The impact of an LGBT safe zone project on campus climate". Journal of College Student Development. Nashville. 43 (4): 522–539.


Counter-acronymEdit

A contrived equivalence LGBTQ="Liberty, Guns, Bible, Trump, and BBQ" seems to be gaining some traction among U.S. right-wingers in 2019.[1],[2]
By the way, long ago in the 1990s the BDSM community dealt with the problem of the acronym "BDSM" perhaps not covering all possible relevant variations by coining the humorous pseudo-acronym "BDSMNOP", where MNOP is from the alphabet song... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha, about the second one! I'm a little sad I can't find enough uses in the types of "durably archived" places Wiktionary requires to add it as an entry there. (Could always add it to the list of protologisms, I suppose.) -sche (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019Edit

change "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual" to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, axis, pansexual" Npc-cheeks (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not in the cited source, and I've not heard the word "axis" used in this context before. Could you point to some reliable sources using "axis"? – Þjarkur (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Words as words in leadEdit

Hiplibrarianship, can you give an explanation for this edit of yours? Your edit summary reads, "italics not applicable here", but in fact, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, it is indeed appropriate. If you have a guideline or policy-based reason for your edit, please share it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As cited in that policy, the Use–mention distinction applies, and I believe neither this article's title nor the first three instances of the initialism qualify. — HipLibrarianship talk 05:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Hiplibrarianship:, Use–mention does apply, but in the opposite sense you believe. All the occurrences of LGBT in the lead are mentions, just like, 'cheese' is derived from Old french. However, it looks like there's an exception for the first occurrence of a "term [that is] strictly synonymous with the subject of the article (i.e. the likely target of a redirect)" so by my reading, the first two initialisms in the lead ('LGBT' and 'GLBT') should in fact, not be italicized, just like you said. The third one, 'LGB', is not "strictly synonymous", so it sounds like it should be; will seek clarification about it at that Talk page.
Subsequent occurrences of those terms, however, would not be covered further down in the article, however, so that for example, in the third paragraph of the lead we would have to change that to: "The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize..." because it isn't the first occurrence. Likewise, for all further mentions of LGBT (and the other terms) throughout the article. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's my whole take on this per MOS:BOLD and MOS:WAW, and I'll invite some MOS folks here to weigh in on this:

  1. All uses (in the Use–mention sense) of the word 'LGBT' throughout the article, as well as of related terms in the article should be in standard font and weight
  2. First occurrence in the article of terms not synomous with 'LGBT' that are redirects should be BOLD, including:
    • LGBTI, LGBTIQ, LGBT+, LGBTQQ, LGBTIQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTTQQIAAP, LGBTIQA+, LGBTQ2, LGBTQ+, LGBT2Q+, LGBTTIQQ2SA (and if they are also mentions which most are, they should be BOLD + ITALIC)
  3. All mentions should be italicized, with some exceptions:
    1. 'GLBT' in the first sentence is strictly synonymous with the subject of the article as well as the target of a redirect, thus not italicized (but still bolded per Article title terms) thus BOLD only
    2. The first occurrence of 'LGB&T' (strictly synonmous; target of redirect) thus BOLD only
    3. Not clear what to do with 'LGBTQ' (but that's not a MOS problem); most would say it is not synonymous, in that case BOLD + ITALIC
  4. 'LGB' in the second sentence of the article is a tricky case; I make it as BOLD + ITALIC, thus:
    • It's a first occurrence of a redirect term, so BOLD
    • It's mentioned, so ITALICS
    • Two styles can be used at once for distinct purposes, so BOLD + ITALIC
    • It's not synonymous with the subject (it excludes the 'T'), so bold-instead-of-italics does not apply, here
    • Conclusion: BOLD + ITALIC

That's pretty much it. Let's see what the MOS gnomes have to say about it. To make it a bit easier to slog through, I've followed the recommendation at MOS:WAW and added {{dfn}} templates to first occurrences of terms; there are fourteen of them if I didn't miss any. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I am only kinda a MoS gnome, but I think Mathglot's understanding is correct. -sche (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Having some doubts about bolding for the list in bullet 2 above, due to the "unhelpful" caveat in the last sentence of Article title terms, but I actually think bolding will still be helpful in this case, to help viewers understand why they ended up at a subsection of the article, so I'm still inclined to go with #2 as stated. But other opinions would be nice. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Drop the TEdit

Pursuant to the AfD of Drop the T linked at the top of this page, I merged the content from that page, in slightly condensed form, into this page and left that page as a redirect. If there are e.g. WP:WEIGHT or sourcing concerns please feel free to move the content to this talk page while discussing it. If there are other steps which need to be taken, such as updating the AfD template at the top of this page, please let me know (what template is supposed to be used?) or pitch in and take them. :) -sche (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019Edit

remove the word "ally" from QUILTBAG acronym description because it does not and never will stand for ally it only stands for asexual 2601:407:C302:6138:D5A5:BD53:7897:5467 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: The source in the article specifically says "A for asexual and ally". NiciVampireHeart 23:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2019Edit

In the section 'Transgender inclusion', change 'The gender identity "transgender" has been recategorized' to 'The term "transgender" has been recategorized'. 'Transgender' is not a gender identity. For comparison, see the first line of the article on the term 'transgender': 'Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.' Cyrridven (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Alduin2000 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "LGBT" page.