Talk:LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory

"LGBTP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBTP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § LGBTP until a consensus is reached. lizthegrey (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just going to leave this here.

Disruptive trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/homosexuals-more-likely-to-molest-kids-study-reports/ JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Ah yes, the famously reliable baptist press and Judith Reisman. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) I don't think we can do anything with this... Neither the Baptist Press or RSVP America which published the underlying report are reliable sources in that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) My point is not that I agree with the Southern Baptists, and I don't, really - my point is that this is not a settled topic, the essence of this article is heavily politically biased, and it should be either deleted or merged into a larger article about LGBT. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) That's not how this works. The Wikipedia article is about LGBT allegedly grooming people into becoming LGBT. Which there is no persuasive evidence for. That Baptist Press article is just a misinterpretation of male-male molestations (many of which are carried out by males who do not have attractions to males nor children). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) So your defence is is asserting that males sexually assaulting males are not necessarily. . . attracted to males. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Do you see the mental gymnastics you are making to defend such a worldview as unbiased? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Pedophile ≠ anything else. False equivalency much? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Or perhaps I happen to be quite familiar with the scientific literature. A large fraction of people who molest children do not have any attraction to children, or arousal patterns for children (this can be tested in a lab with penile plethysmography). Some men molest children because they have issues with psychopathology, drug use, alcoholism, lack of access to an adult partner etc. Molestation of boys is more common in cultures where males are segregated away from females, for example. And anyway, homosexual pedophiles show strong arousal to prepubescent boys not adult men, while homosexual teleiophiles show arousal to adult men and not prepubescent boys. Nobody calls a heterosexual pedophile a 'straight man', it's also illogical to do the same for homosexual peodphiles and gay men. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) My point exactly. Men molesting boys doesn't make this conspiracy theory true. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC) I'm just going to leave this here. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) If thats your point then you need to bring reliable sources to the table. See WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

MOve

can tell there has been no discussion about moving this page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article content and the bulk of the references at the bottom for the article, they use the term LGBTQ, so I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial bold move by the mover (@Lewisguile) that is in line with our policies. They cited consub in the move, butasI said, looking at the article content and refs, this also seems to be supported by them. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

But they claimed the had been a discussion in their edit summary. "As per RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ", there is no such RM. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there was here: Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024 - it was the trigger to move the main article to LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not this article. 14:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

No, which is why the mover cited WP:CONSUB with the parent article. Not every single page move has to be subject to an individual RM, if it appears to be supported in line with our policies, then editors can WP:BOLDly move articles. As I mentioned above already, this appears to be one such case sinc almost all the refs used in this article use the term LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

IS it? as this seems to be a conspiracy about solely TG people, not the queer community (in general). It is related yes (hence why we can make it part of the same project and have see also pages. But is it the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear path forward for those that think this move is unsupported by policy. Consult WP:CONSUB's exception: "where a specific subtopic has its own common name, which is therefore likely to be the more natural or recognizable title". If a review of sources about this subject shows that "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, we should move it back. I don't think that's the case, but anyone is free to look into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, I am not necessarily against the move, but I would have liked to see the arguments (see my comment above about this being about TG (not gay) people). Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You should re-read the article. It's about way more than trans people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to reply to you directly, @Slatersteven, Raladic hit the nail on the head. There was an RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ, and based on WP:CONSUB, I WP: BOLDly moved this one. I apologise if this has created any confusion.

@Firefangledfeathers' suggestion seems a good one to see if there's a case for an exception? Lewisguile (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's mostly TQ+ I'd say. LGB separatists (aka Drop the T crowd, some even say #DroptheTQ+) often try to distance gay from queerness (see lesbian not queer and Gays Against Groomers). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a risk of going into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but there is question as to how genuine those organisations are. Certainly they are fringe organisations and not repreentative of a significant proportion of LGB people. The UK equivalent the LGB Alliance is notorious for rarely campaigning on Lesbian and Gay issues and mainly being an anti trans group with LBG issues being a pretext. Membership figures have shown only a minority in that organisation are LGB. While it is true some Gay and Lesbian people feel they don't want to associate, it's not a significant number, compared to cis straight people wanting to use it as a wedge to attack LGBTQ in smaller, more managable groups.

I think that these groups are not significant. Rankersbo (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what Slatersteven was asking for, but this talk page is about the scope of this article and I defended the inclusion of other letters in the title. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK, sorry, thanks for the clarification. In which case yeah such organisations are likely to balk at the queer label as much as they rail against trans people and allies.Rankersbo (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)