Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Latest comment: 1 day ago by SigurdsSister in topic Why just LGBT?
WikiProject

LGBT studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

WikiProject iconLGBT studies Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Removing pronouns from articles edit

I'm seeing more and more where people with even a slightly ambiguous gender identity have pronouns stripped entirely from their article. I would like to bring attention to the concept of 'de-gendering' and point out that this isn't some perfect solution. I mean, James Barry (surgeon) went to great lengths to hide his identity, used he/him pronouns until death, and referred to himself as a man. Why are we caving to transphobia to remove the pronouns he chose? Taking away pronouns only for genderqueer people isn't a permanent solution. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And more recently, Nex Benedict who's friends clearly use he/him and they/them has lost the privilege of being referred to with the pronouns he chose. I just don't understand how this is being seen as a neutral solution, and would like a more clear consensus. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
From WP:GENDERID:

MOS:GENDERID states, in regard to terms relating to gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources.

The MOS appears to agree with you. I would encourage reverting any further edits you find which remove self-designated pronouns. Doughbo (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Non-binary gay category edit

I boldly created Category:Non-binary gay men (with help of WP:PetScan but I'm questioning if there's another way of naming this category. Category:Gay non-binary people or Category:Non-binary gay people? Is this vague? Sure there are non-binary men, but not everyone in the category would be directly a non-binary man I guess. And terms such as veldian/turian, vincian, or uranian imply WP:NEO. Any comment? --MikutoH talk! 00:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Giovanni 0331: tagging you since you created Category:Transgender gay men --MikutoH talk! 00:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have any objection to this category existing, but I believe a name like Category:Non-binary gay people would make more sense. I saw you added this category to two pages I watch (Alex Newell and Toby Marlow), both of whom I think would object to being classified as men. Aerin17 (tc) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreeing with Aerin, I am not sure Shea Couleé identifies as a non-binary man as they go by they/them and she/her pronouns out and in drag respectively. This category's value is in capturing people who specifically identify as non-binary men, it should be used more carefully Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the comments here. I think "Category:Non-binary gay people" would be a better name for the category. Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have reviewed a couple more of the people categorised, a lot of this is just misgendering unfortunately. Even if it's in good faith this mostly needs to be reverted. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
For BLP safety at the very least, I am going to remove anyone without he/him pronouns. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for y'all's input. I fixed the category in the biographies. However, "gay people" includes lesbians, right? I categorized as such. I also noticed Category:Gay people was deleted. --MikutoH talk! 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why even create something with the "non-binary men" or "non-binary women" strings? It feels disruptive, to say the least. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LilianaUwU, Antisymmetricnoise, Historyday01, and Aerin17: The categories were nominated/considered for dicussion (CfD), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Non-binary lesbians. --MikutoH talk! 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

New article: The Abbey (bar) edit

Hi all, I just pushed The Abbey (bar) to mainspace. I am not great with categorization or formatting citations uniformly, so any help in those domains would be especially appreciated! Wracking talk! 22:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" at AfD edit

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaggie. Your comments on these AfDs would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wrote my first draft (about a trans woman), could someone take a look and make sure that I properly followed the guidelines on the use of name and pronouns? edit

My draft is here, I’m particularly unsure if the lead, early life and death are done properly?

Thank you in advance! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read the sources, but the article seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly. Draft looks nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great, thank you very much for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I already rearranged around your statement that she was "born male", which is not the current manner of discussing such things; current usage prefers that we treat the trans identity as always having been accurate, just misread. I raise my eyebrow a bit at the use of Confidentials as a source, as it's primarily a restaurant review site; were the subject a living person, I would object more strenuously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Appreciate the changes, they look great! I’m mostly using them for minor things and as backup, because I don’t have access to her aboutself writing FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move: Genital mutilation and modification → Genital modification edit

Article surrounds topics such as gender-affirming care, circumcision, labiaplasty, and other matters.

Current debate here. Move discussion has been extended. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare edit

Hi all

I just finished writing TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare, I would really appreciate some help with it, also please add it to your watchlist, I know trans related pages get trolls, vandals etc.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Content dispute at International Transgender Day of Visibility edit

There is a dispute over whether to include this content in the International Transgender Day of Visibility article (variations of it have been added and removed by several different editors, myself included). Discussion on the talk page would be welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I discussed the dispute with the experienced editor involved, who raised relevant WP policy considerations, and I think we came to an understanding: it's fine to add a section on "Reception" to TDOV that would include positive and negative responses and criticisms, including afaik the political controversy you sought to include. I also added some content on criticisms of TDOV's visibility focus by Black trans activists and scholars. Please let me know if you disagree or find this useful, etc. ProfGray (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The confluence of the two events was a notable event that got substantial press coverage, but the wording is terrible and not in the slightest neutral. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please reassess GaLTaS article edit

Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association has had extensive work since being assessed as C-class a year or so ago, such that I believe it now belongs in B-class or better. Would someone with expertise in classifications please take a look and either move up to B-class or better, or provide feedback on what the article still needs? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've put incredible work into researching and writing this article. Rather than focus on assessment, I would think the priority would be to get feedback, as you say, and ideally the involvement of other uninvolved and experienced editors. I will comment on the Talk page. ProfGray (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI - User:Bohemian Baltimore made some sweeping categorizing changes edit

As an FYI, the user made some sweeping changes, some of which very erroneously implied that Intersex, Asexuality and Aromanticism were separate from LGBTQIA+ by creating new subcategories and moving things around. Part of this may stem from the confusion that we currently still have all pages be titled just LGBT, although we use it to mean the wider community. This may need a broad cleanup to correct. Raladic (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding to this, they have specifically created Category:LGBT intersex people and Category:LGBT asexual people and multiple subcategories in those two that may need to be nominated for deletion (probably with the exceptions of Category:Transgender asexual people, Category:Asexual non-binary people, and the corresponding intersex transgender and non-binary categories, which were preexisting) ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've also noticed that in the Category for LGBT people, part of the description reads "Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case." This may have contributed to the decision to make multiple new categories. Perhaps this is something we should discuss clarifying? ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
An editor has raised these changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7. A tremendous amount of editor time has been consumed in recent months by editors making sweeping, undiscussed changes to the LGBT people categories that subsequently get undone at WP:CFD.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5 (ongoing)] This doesn't seem like an especially productive way of doing things.
This got me thinking again about the arguments for implementing a shift from LGBT to LGBTQ+ on the basis of improving clarity and accuracy. I've added my thoughts on that at Talk:LGBT § Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME.--Trystan (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move edit

 

An editor has requested that Classification of transsexual and transgender people be moved to Classification of transgender people, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about Kino's inclusion on List of fictional non-binary characters page edit

Presently there is a discussion here about whether Kino, the protagonist in Kino's Journey, should be included on the page listing non-binary characters (including all those which fall under the non-binary umbrella). I've responded to the original post, which asked in part, "Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described?", and challenged Kino's inclusion on the page, among other comments. However, your views would also be useful in this discussion. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classification of transsexual and transgender people#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom discussion on protection for Gender and sexuality articles edit

There's a proposal to amend the GENSEX arbitration decision, to make it explicitly clear that admins can make any article or Talk: page in the GENSEX area be protected to require extended-confirmed (300/50) access to edit it.

People may wish to read and/or contribute to that discussion. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Death of Nex Benedict edit

It may be relevant to this Wikipoject to know that this article has recently undergone a substantial pruning of content and reliable sources as well as changes in WP:STRUCTURE, from e.g. this on 6 April to this on 11 April.

Changes include e.g.

examples of changes to the article between 6 April and 11 April
  • removal of reliably-sourced content from the lead with inaccurate edit summary [1] "removing unfactual claim" (it is well sourced that family members had access to the full report when making their 14 March statement)
  • removal of one of the substantially reported lasting impacts of the event from the lead [2] with edit summary "Dept. of Education response doesn't need to be mentioned in lead"
  • removal of reliably-sourced content from a Benedict vigil reported by NBC News,

    At the Owasso vigil, one participating friend said, "I want to start off by saying that Nex was transgender, and he used he/him pronouns" and "He was so much more than his transness."

    with an edit summary "removing quote which is redundant and violates MOS:GENDERID pronoun rules" [3] (this is despite the well-sourced note in the lead of the article about Benedict's preferences and the text of MOS:GENDERID)
  • removal of reliably-sourced details (e.g. an interview with a school resource officer in the ER is now "a subsequent interview with police"), removal of content emphasized by reliable sources (e.g. Benedict telling the officer "I got jumped"), move of content so it does not reflect chronology of statements/events reported by reliable sources (e.g. Sue Benedict reporting past conduct by the other students towards Nex Benedict early on in the interview, after Nex said "I got jumped"), with an edit summary stating "rearranging ordering of events to be chronological" [4] (there has been some discussion previously related to this, and it is a particularly challenging area of the article)
  • removal of an ACLU statement with an edit summary "removing primary source" [5] (no indication of an attempt to find secondary coverage)
  • removal of reliably-sourced content not included elsewhere in the article with a generally inaccurate edit summary "removing stuff mentioned in investigation section" [6] (the request for a DOJ criminal investigation is not mentioned in the Investigation section, and the brief mention of the Dept of Education request is context)
  • mass-removal of reliably sourced content [7] with the edit summary "removing non-notable reactions" (some of the removed content received international news coverage, and per WP:NNC, The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.)
  • change to the structure of the article [8] with the edit summary "rearranging order of sections to put hard facts first"
  • mass-removal of reliably-sourced content, with national coverage by the Associated Press and USAToday [9], including but not limited to content and a quote emphasized with secondary commentary as "one of the more poignant moments of the event" by USA Today:

    Hundreds of people attended an Oklahoma City vigil, where a speaker asked queer adults in attendance to raise their candles to identify themselves to youth in the audience, and said, "This is your family. These are the people who have your back. These are the people who made it through their teenage years and came out on the other side. They are the ones who are living healthy, good lives. You are not alone – do you understand? You are not alone."

  • mass-removal of reliably-sourced content with secondary and national coverage (i.e. nationwide Benedict vigils generally, Benedict vigils reported in groups, reliable sources about various Benedict vigils) [10] with the edit summary "removing undue details -- no need for a laundry list of all the cities or mention of umbrellas". Reliably-sourced content that was removed also included

    and the Parasol Patrol, a nonprofit LGBTQ+ support organization that uses items such as umbrellas to form buffers between environments such as schools and anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrators.

  • removal of attributed content from lead, replaced with not what Benedict's family said [11], with inaccurate edit summary "concision and precision in lead" (precision might be quotes?)
  • restructure Reactions section to remove chronological order (this has discussed previously and opposed on the article talk), remove existing subheadings, create new subheadings that do not reflect subheading contents, etc, with the edit summary [12] "trim and rearrange" (some reactions to the autopsy report have also been re-segregated, this content had previously been per WP:STRUCTURE included in the related autopsy section according to NPOV policy)
  • removal of a quoted reaction from Olivia Gray, a citizen of the Osage Nation and Chair of the Board of Directors for the Northeast Oklahoma Indigenous Safety and Education Foundation (NOISE) to The Advocate [13], with the edit summary "Olivia Gray's opinion on this is not relevant to the article" (This source was discussed on the article talk, during pre-discussion about whether to move the article title from Death of Nex Benedict to Suicide of Nex Benedict [14])
  • mass-removal of reliably-sourced content [15] with the edit summary "making reactions more concise" (removed content includes

    But nobody should have to be brave just to be themselves.

    from Biden's statement on Benedict, and all content related to Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation and their statement, which had been reported by NBC News)
  • mass-removal of reliably-sourced content [16] with the edit summary "concision" (includes removal of a quote including criticism of the medical examiner's office)

Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


In general the idea of a concision pass to make the article more encyclopedia and less like news article with details and anecdotes is a good one. This is a lot of material changed though so definitely needs a run through. The parasol patrol one is a good example of how this editor is getting sloppy. I can see how removing the line explaining what the parasol patrol is, would be good concision aka "Rainbow Youth Project and Parasol Patrol." The editor removed mention of the parasol patrol entirely while leaving in the source related to it. Sloppy. This needs to be slowed down and reviewed. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cass Review edit

Hi all

A major review into trans healthcare, the Cass Review, has been published in the UK, I'd really appreciate if people with an understanding of medical research could read it, its currently a very edited article with quite high traffic. To put it mildly the report is being used by politicians and press to push for restrictions to healthcare provisions. The report has been criticised by academics and trans groups in the UK for issues with both its research methodology and its recommendations, but I don't have experience in writing about this kind of thing on Wikipedia.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a problem we're gonna see in the article itself is that WP:MEDRS might be mis-applied to suppress criticism. We should, though, be aware that Cass is a primary source and MEDRS says Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, so we should be watchful of this widely-criticised hatchet-job being accepted uncritically in other articles about gender.
Commentary links that should meet RS:
  • Michael Bachelard; Aisha Dow (10 April 2024). "Contentious UK gender medicine report prompts reflection, outrage in Australia". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 10 April 2024. — the quote from University of Melbourne associate professor Ada Cheung, at the end of the article, would probably meet WP:MEDRS, I would guess
  • Tweet from long-time trans campaigner Roz Kaveney criticising Wes Streeting's endorsement of Cass: Roz Kaveney [@RozKaveney] (April 10, 2024). "This praise of a biased tendentious thoroughly meretricious report indicates how unfit for high office Wes Streeting is. Does he endorse the utterly unevidenced claim that people should be prevented from making life-changing decisions before the age of 25? #SackWesStreeting" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
Some opinion pieces providing analysis that might pass WP:RS:
Press releases providing analysis:
OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi OwenBlacker thanks very much, please could you post this on the talk page of the article as well? Thanks so much, John Cummings (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft edit

This article seems to flit back-and-forth between using modern terms for gender and sexual identities ("gay" and "transgender"), but in other parts it uses outdated language ("transvestite", "transsexual"). Obviously this is a historical article and I am aware that terminology changes, but I think this could do with a copyedit from members of this Wikiproject for consistency (and any other edits you would reccomend for this article). Thank you!   GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why just LGBT? edit

Does this project include asexuality and pansexuality? If not why not? If so why not call it WikiProject LGBTQ studies?

Thanks for reading. SigurdsSister (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"LGBT" is just used as an umbrella term for the whole queer movement. "Queer studies" could be a reasonable alternative name. However, this discussion has been had a million times. Tons of move requests have been made to LGBT, our article about the initialism. It's just inconsistant, and in my experience, the alphabet soup is just a distraction from the actual goals of both this project, the wider community, and any LGBT-related movements. If there is a widely held belief that this WikiProject should change its name, I'm fine with it, but I really don't want another pages-long thread of people disagreeing with eachother about it. That's the inevitable result of proposals of LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, etc. It all means exactly the same in practice, but everyone has a slightly different preference. This is not an "LGB" exclusionary tactic we're doing here. I don't feel excluded as an enby ace myself, it's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok that’s totally fine, just wondering.SigurdsSister (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply