Talk:LGBT community/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scene verses community

To me, the Scene is something rather different from the Gay community. We should distinguish between the two... OwenBlacker 12:19, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Postmodernism

I totally did not understand this sentence:

Postmodernist gays, for example will often view the gay community as just another social construct.

A community is a type of social structure. I think that makes it a "social construct" pretty much by definition. I was wondering if the author meant that postmodernists (and it need not just be postmodern gays, I guess) would tend to view homosexuality or "gayness" itself as a social construct, and thus the notion of a gay population of any kind is also a social construct. Can someone explain this better or point to any primary sources for postmodern views of gaity? -- Beland 05:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Top 5 US Cities with a high gay community

Where are these statistics from?

This may be a bit more modern.

Recently, questions about sexuality were removed from the U.S. census. The only demographics of gay communities now come from independent organizations. Metropolitan areas with the highest rates of L.G.B.T. residents San Francisco 6.2% Portland, Ore. 5.4% Austin, Tex. 5.3% New Orleans 5.1% Seattle 4.8% Robynrnaura (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

From "Gay"

After some discussion on the gay page, it was deemed that the information on the gay community would be better served on the gay community page. In a coupll days it will be removed from the Gay page and a link will reference the reader to coem to this page. --Waterspyder 05:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A further extension of social globlization ?

Sorry, but what was that suposed to mean ?

merging Wikipedian categories

On Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_by_politics, we're talking about standardizing formats for WIkipedian categories (putting "wikipedian" in most, that sort of thing). Josiah Rowe brought up the question of why we have both category:LGBT SOFFA and category:Queer Supportive Wikipedians. How would people feel about a merge of those two into category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community? Make a comment at the CfD loation if you like, or here.--Mike Selinker 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"The notion of the gay community and 'controversial"

How the article began, "The notion of the gay community" and that it can be "controversial" represent POV's, not fact. I replaced it with a description that is more factually accurate. Can anyone give me an example of a sentence that begins, "The notion of", that isn't followed by something negative? Example: "The notion that Sally can act is silly." Also, the term "controversial" can be mentioned later, but should not be included in its initial description. Michaelh2001 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole term 'gay community' is controversial, in that it's not accepted that it even exists. Same with 'black community'. The terms are divisive, dreamt up by marketing people and used by politicians and the media, then shoved down the throats of ordinary citizens going about their lives who have no need whatsoever and who receive no benefit whatsoever from stupid terminology such as this. Yet the whole article is written as if '<whatever> community' is without controversy and has universal agreement. The article is also massively biased towards the USA, unsurprisingly. And the USA, of course, just happens to be the place that is so segregated into marketing 'communities' that there's scant sense of normal humanity left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.183.158 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

Proposing move of article content to LGBT community (with redirect from Gay community) to reflect more inclusive and current terminology. -- User0529 (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. Sorry, opposed on this one as well. Lately I've heard LGBT communitie-s but generally the phrase has been "gay community" and I think that's the starting point that the lede will correctly and quickly spell out is often used to refer to all LGBT peoples even though we don't speak as one or even have a leader (see gay cabal). In time this may change but it will be a long time as it's the mainstream term. And gay boys having sex seems to remain the ... ahem ... sticking point with many. Banjeboi 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It still seems to be referred to as the Gay Community, even if it does encompass other things, so common name I think would still go to Gay Community. Narson (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Though LGBT seems to be more accurate term than is gay, "gay community" is by far the more common one, and is understood inclusively. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Criticisms" Section

I really hate that this entire article is written in a textbook/artsy prose rather than a more easy-to-read format that flows well. But I digress. I have a particular problem with the "Criticisms" section, though, and am going to attempt to expand on it and clarify it a bit. I will also try to cite some sources as I have time (funny there are no sources on most of this article period). I don't think it sounds clear (at all) in its current form, and don't think it hits on the true nature of internal criticisms within the gay community. I don't disagree with the tone of the section or what the section is trying to say, but I just feel like it is written very poorly and doesn't explain enough. Further editing or clarification is appreciated. 68.12.110.233 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not perfect so someone else please improve. I will come back in and source as I can. 68.12.110.233 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideally no articles should have criticism sections and the content instead woven into the rest of the article. I'd say continue tightening up each sentence and then look to splitting it up to the most relevant areas. I'm working on some other stuff but will check it in a bit. Banjeboi 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article entirely. None of the claims made by the author have been referenced, so there is no consideration for inclusion of this research in the first place. Please do not re-insert it without citations. 74.242.121.63 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Red link removed

I removed the red link to "drag shows." There is not a page for this, so the link is a dead link. Juri Koll (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it should be sent to drag or drag queen, I sent it to drag queen as that seems most logical for the context. -- Banjeboi 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to "LGBT community"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 02:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Gay community → LGBT community — - The name "gay community" is ambiguous, as it can mean any one of "LGBT community", "gay men and lesbians community", or "gay men community". This article is about the LGBT community, so it should be under that title for clarity. --Alynna (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Lesbians in general are sometimes called gays, but tend to prefer to be called lesbians, and LGBT is the normal term used to include lesbians (females), gays (males), bisexual (both male and female) and transgender (sex change). 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still opposed for now, LGBT community should redirect here, and it does. LGBT people are still and possibly most commonly called "the gays" no matter how incorrect that is. There is also the fact that there is no one community, there are in actuality thousands of overlapping and intersecting communities. As much as Wikipedia has standardized the use of LGBT the rest of the world does not usually do so. The article should make these points clearer if it doesn't already but I feel the title is fine for now although there might be compelling reasons to do so. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Probably 90% of the population thinks that LGBT must be a misspelling, or variation, for LS/MFT. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it's because I'm not American, but I had never heard of LS/MFT so if you mean Lucky Strike, I suspect that "90%" is a significant overestimate. As for the proposed move, WP:COMMONNAME applies as supported by the WP:GOOGLETEST and the page name should stay as-is.—Ash (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm American and I've never heard of LS/MFT. In my experience, most people know that LGBT is something to do with gay people, but aren't sure what it stands for. But my experience skews towards liberal and/or diverse areas. --Alynna (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops, I didn't see the other discussion earlier on this talk page. Sorry for the rehash. "Gay community" is a more common term than "LGBT community", so I see the argument for leaving the article at the "gay" title. The main reason I requested this move is that someone recently removed a link to transgender, arguing that trans isn't part of gay. If this article is really about the nebulous community of all LGBT people ("LGBT community", for short), then that link belongs, but the title "gay community" is causing confusion for some editors. Regarding your other point, I agree that there's not one monolithic community. I'm not actually sure "the community" is a coherent topic to write about; it's sort of a smooshing-together of an assortment of LGBT-related topics that don't have much to do with each other: LGBT culture, LGBT rights and LGBT social movements, media representation of LGBT people, and demographics of LGBT people. That's probably because when people refer to the "gay community", they usually mean either "the set of all gay/LGBT people" or "the set of all LGBT activists and organizations". Should this article exist at all? --Alynna (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. For the move to be valid, we'd need to establish that (a) there's such a thing as the LGBT community (which, per Benjiboi above, I don't think we can), and (b) the undeniably common term "Gay community" is synonymous with it, which I don't think it is. It's possible that a _new_ article LGBT community could be split off from this one, leaving this one to be solely about the male homosexual community - but I don't think that such a split is appropriate at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support For reasons of clarity and WP:COMMONNAME. Even though I'm straight, I'm familiar with the term - LGBT is quite a common term now in the UK and Europe, maybe its less common in the USA. I agree that "gay community" is ambiguous, as many individuals covered by the scope of this article, including lesbians, bisexuals and especially transexuals, may not find themselves covered by the term "gay". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh it is common in the U.S., but only in the gay community. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In Britain it's quite common in mainstream media as well. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Interestingly, I tested that, and found only 13 news sites in the uk domain for LGBT and 180 for gay, while in the .com news sites a majority did include LGBT. Not common enough to make the move, I would still say (558 for LGBT and 532 for gay), especially considering the overwhelming use of gay in the uk. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. I use the term LGBT a lot in articles, but to refer to may overlaping groups. There are certainly times when the "gay community" refers to LGBT pople all together, but also times when the gay part of community is seperate from Bi or trans parts (sometimes even in opposition), so needs treating seperately. To some extent an LGBT community exists, if only because of overlap of bars and magazines etc, but it is much less coherent than the gay community. If something get written on the trans or bi communities, i can see a place for an overarching LGBT community article, with the separate identities also having subarticles if large enough.YobMod 18:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - LGBT is the more common usage. Jeni ^(talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - GLBT, LGBT (and increasingly more letters) are becoming more common but are still far from universally understood. Jonathunder (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Out of curiousity ... presently "gay community" yields 489,000 Google-hits vs. 268,000 for "lgbt community". If someone is inspired maybe popping in all the variations would also be entertaining. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia in general uses LGBT, because it is the correct term in some instances. (But we try to spell it out wherever we use it.) The issue is not whether "LGBT" is acceptable on Wikipedia (it is), but whether this article should be called "gay community" or "LGBT community". As I said above, I'm willing to accept that the former is a more common term -- just wanted to clarify what the issue is. --Alynna (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should look at the use of both terms and when they are about equal we can simply switch over? -- Banjeboi 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't the opposite apply in that case, I thought it would be common sense to avoid moving pages in such a situation as the same argument could be used to move it back again.—Ash (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. LGBT may not be quite as common but to my mind the use of a term that is ambiguous and possibly raises the expectation of a different topic to many than is actually presented (because gay so often is associated with males only), should bend to a term which is far more precise but not quite as common.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per my comment above, COMMONNAME applies.—Ash (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment I'm not sure that common names works well here. We use the most common name "of the person or thing that is the subject of the article" (emphasis added). A Google test tells us very well, but generically, that "gay community" is used far more often than "LGBT community", but it does not tell us how many of the sources in the results for gay community actually refer to a different topic, i.e, the male gay community alone. Every source that uses the phrase in that restrictive manner cannot be counted in the commonality column for "gay community" because the topic they are referring to is not this one. That's why concerns of precision cannot be separated out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What should this article be about?

Now that we've determined it's not going to be moved, I'd like to formally open a discussion on what this article should be about. Currently, it's an assortment of LGBT-related topics that don't have much to do with each other: LGBT culture, LGBT rights and LGBT social movements, media portrayal of LGBT people, and demographics of LGBT people. That's probably because when people refer to the "gay community", they usually mean either "the set of all gay/LGBT people" or "the set of all LGBT activists and organizations". I'm not sure this article makes sense as a coherent topic.

Banjeboi said elsewhere: "The article should be about what is meant by the phrase and why there actually isn't a single definable community. The etymology and use of the phrase as well could echo to what we have at LGBT."

I propose we create a new Demographics of LGBT people article, merge each section from the current gay community article into the appropriate main article for that section, then rewrite this page as what Banjeboi suggested. --Alynna (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We have Demographics of sexual orientation, {{Demographics of the United States}}, and {{Demographics of US}} which might be useful. A guideline of helpful information might be this builder-template which gives some of the demographics lingo. My hunch is that potential article could actually grow here but otherwise am unsure the best way forward. BTW there is also Demographics of Queens but that may not be as helpful. -- Banjeboi 20:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What I had in mind was different from Demographics of sexual orientation. That article is about the prevalence of homosexuality/bisexuality. The article I am proposing would hold the information currently in gay community about education level, income, and mental health, in addition to new information such as race, tendency to live in urban/rural areas, housing status, etc. It could also give more details - some of these things have been studied separately for lesbians, gay men, and transgender people (probably bisexual people too sometime). --Alynna (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest starting a subsection on this article regarding the demographics - even if they are limited to data from the US or remain country-specific, etc. Start migrating the content there. I know there is Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. which has gone US-based surveys and undoubtably other surveys have also taken place. When you feel it's large enough then birth the article. In the US it was big news that the 10-year census in 2010 will include more data on LGBT people so the timing is great. The lede of the section/article could include how exact numbers remain elusive. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Scene vs community

Further to what Owen Blacker said in 2004, having Gay scene redirect here might be OK if the article was a little different - but the article is pretty much "Gay issues" - again not to much of a stretch, but the combined effect makes this a bad redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

POV/Questionable wording

First sentence of the rights section:"The LGBT community represents a social component of the global community that is believed by many, including heterosexual allies, to be underrepresented in the area of civil rights". Who are the many, gays, rights groups, heterosexuals, celebrities, people in general? And how much is many, it's too ambiguous and has no citation. Furthermore is, "including heterosexual allies", necessary I'd assume any of their supporters coming from any group wouldn't believe they have equal rights (or they obviously wouldn't think they need more rights), this sentence seems to be borderline propaganda to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

gay heros

Has anyone ever thought of doing an article on Gay Heros - worked with veterans for many years and I know there were many of them, though, at the time they sadly had to be silent about their sexual preference (WWII and Vietnam).

Personally I would love to see an article on Heros who are Gay written by gay persons who will write a deserving article. Just a thought. Here's some sources - http://www.gaymilitarysignal.com/history.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-2587400130.html Mugginsx (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Gay community → LGBT community — I think the name of this article should be "LGBT community" instead of "gay community". The word gay is an ambiguous and often pejorative term and it doesn't cover anything beside male and female homosexuals. Are bisexuals and trans people gay? According to this name, they are.

We already have LGBT portal, LGBT-related lists, LGBT culture, LGBT people, LGTB history and even LGBT stubs. Do I see somewhere Gay portal, Gay-related lists, Gay culture, Gay people, Gay history and Gay stubs?

I hereby propose that the article should be renamed to "LGBT community" in order to standardize Wikipedia's coverage on LGBT topics. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Depends on what we want to say; one community is a -er- proper subset of the other. It may be best to have two (or rather three or four) articles; gay community would be largely cultural, LGBT community would be largely political - and it would not go back to Stonewall, would it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Anything that avoids using a pejorative or confusing term in an article title is a step in the right direction ("it's so gay that we can't say 'gay community'"). Also, there is confusion over whether gay means (1) a male homosexual, (2) a homosexual person (but not a bisexual), or (3) any homosexual or bisexual person, i.e., a non-heterosexual. Confusing terminology makes it hard to write articles. As an engineer, I prefer words that are precise and neutral. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, a move for consistency. I've seen the term "LGBT" around here and if, as a reader, I'd probably type that in. If any letters in this term aren covered in the article yet, they should be added to it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support for consistency, and based on the contents of the article. – Pnm (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Have the article LGBT community and multiculturalism merge with LGBT community

Talk:LGBT community and multiculturalism#Merge With LGBT community -- Preceding unsigned comment by User:Kndimov talk at 16:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC). -- Comment signed by Kndimov (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are there no breakdowns of gay communities by geography and nationality? for example, "gay americans, lesbian americans" as well as well known famous lgbt individuals. -- Preceding unsigned comment by User:Daytona4daytona talk at 21:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC). -- Comment signed by Kndimov (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Support --Prcc27 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Health Care Needs ad Provisions for Gays and Lesbians Veterans

I am proposing to edit the Wikipedia page entitled “LGBT Community.” Specifically, I will be adding a new section on “Health Care Needs and Provisions for Gays and Lesbians Veterans” in this page. The existing Wikipedia page does not discuss healthcare needs for the gay and lesbian military veterans. It misses the discussion that there are approximately one million gay and lesbian veterans in America (Sherman et al). With the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, the number of gays and lesbians in the military will rise (Sherman et al). There will be an increase in veterans who seek medical care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The current page does not discuss the veterans’ medical experiences with the Veteran Hospitals and their degree of satisfaction with the care that they are receiving (Sherman et al). As reported in the literature, many gay and lesbian veterans are not satisfied with their current healthcare services. Some of them feel ostracized. Many are not comfortable in disclosing their sexual orientation and identities to their healthcare providers (Sherman et al). However, it is important for all patients, including gay and lesbian veterans, to feel comfortable in communicating their social, psychological, and mental concerns to their health care providers to ensure that they are receiving adequate medical treatment (Sherman et al). Creating a more receptive and understanding environment will undoubtedly benefit the veterans, as the information will be instrumental to the healthcare professionals to detect any underlying problems, such as mental health issues, and provide the best health-care services (Sherman et al). The current Wikipedia page also does not explicate on the recent changes in the VHA. The 2013 VHA Strategic Plan calls for the creation of the Office of Health Equity and the expansion of the role of government in improving healthcare services for gay and lesbian veterans (Sharpe and Uchendu). The needs and provision of health care to the gay and lesbian veterans is an important topic, as it will help us to have a better understanding of the LGBT communities, their hardships, and instances of discrimination that they are enduring (Sharpe and Uchendu). I found two scholarly sources that will support my Wikipedia contribution. One article is “Ensuring Appropriate Care for LGBT Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration” by Virginia Sharpe and Uchenna Uchendu. The other article is “Communication between VA Providers and Sexual and Gender Minority Veterans: A Pilot Study” by Michelle Sherman and her co-authors. I will be adding a new section to discuss the health care needs and the significance of equitable healthcare for gay and lesbian veterans in the Wikipedia web page. In the past, gay and lesbian military personnel and veterans were uncomfortable in disclosing their sexual orientation or identities because they were afraid that this information could lead to their discharge from the military (Sherman et al). It could also instigate discrimination because of societal stereotypes and stigmas (Sherman et al). The gay and lesbian veterans were worried that they would be denied medical service or visitation rights for their partners (Sherman et al). I will be adding some information from Sherman and her coauthor’s recent study on the satisfaction of the gay and lesbian veterans with the healthcare services that they are receiving (Sherman et al). According to their studies of the Veteran Hospitals in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas, out of the 58 gay and lesbian veterans surveyed, over two-thirds of them admit that they have never discussed their sexual orientation with their healthcare providers (Sherman et al). Only approximately 28% of the veterans are satisfied with their healthcare treatment (Sherman et al). Other veterans express their feelings that the VHA does not provide a welcoming environment, and the health care providers are not receptive to their medical needs (Sherman et al). Consequently, some gay and lesbian veterans are hesitant to seek medical assistance from the VHA. They have trouble in finding adequate and equitable healthcare services (Sherman et al). But it is important for the gay and lesbian veterans to feel at ease with their health care providers. If they can divulge their personal information and communicate with their physicians, it is more likely that they will receive better medical treatment and better outcomes (Sherman et al). To alleviate these concerns and to provide better health care services, the VHA has recently introduced some policy changes. I will be adding a section on these new VHA programs. For example, the VHA has established the Office of Health Equity (Sharpe and Uchendu). In particular, the VHA is instituting policies that require healthcare providers to care for gay and lesbian patients in the same respectful manner as other patients (Sharpe and Uchendu). Another policy is to redefine the meaning of “family” and allow the gay and lesbian veterans to decide who is regarded as part of their family (Sharpe and Uchendu). The VHA also has initiated educational and training programs to help healthcare providers to be more knowledgeable about the psychological and social distresses and concerns that the gay and lesbian veterans have as well as their preferences (Sharpe and Uchendu). The healthcare professionals are also trained to build better rapport with the veterans to prevent discrimination (Sharpe and Uchendu). Since the gay and lesbian veterans are not asked to disclose information about their sexual orientation on medical forms, the healthcare providers are often unaware of this information when they consider medical treatment options (Sharpe and Uchendu). In response to these concerns, the Institute of Medicine suggested that patients disclose such information on medical records; however, it is important to ensure that this information is private and confidential and will only be used to assess health and health equity (Sharpe and Uchendu). It is also essential to create a welcoming environment for the gay and lesbian veterans so that the patients will not feel stigmatized because of their sexual identities or orientation (Sharpe and Uchendu). The goal of these first steps is to foster a sense of trust between the gay and lesbian patients and the healthcare providers (Sharpe and Uchendu). By adding this information in the web page, I can contribute to Wikipedia and to the field. QCommunity1 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your topic is a bit narrow for this broad article. I'd suggest Sexual orientation and the United States military might be a better place. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding to LGBT Multiculturalism

I would like to edit the LGBT Multiculturalism section since there is a brief overview of minorities in LGBT communities, it does not go into depth of the specific movements that the LGBT community and minorities faced together. They do tough on homonormativity, but do not clearly state this and expand on it.

I wish to expand on the struggle that the LGBT minority faces when it comes to homonormativity and provide more sources to make it clear. Based off of what we learned from Cohen, your sexual orientation is not the only thing that matters when it comes to acceptance and opportunities. There is homonormativity in the LGBT community, and minority LGBT individuals face greater obstacles and discrimination because of their ethnicity and sexual orientation. Furthermore, I want to give concrete examples of these obstacles and examples comparing white, homonormative LGBT members and multicultural LGBT members.

Secondly, I want to add more information of the LGBT multicultural community not only fighting for LGBT rights but for social/civil rights also. I want to give concrete examples and sources since there are none in this section. In this section, there is a brief overview that there is a relationship between the movements, but it does not give direct sources or examples. I wish to expand more, however, on issues that LGBT minorities have fought for that deal with their ethnicities such as discrimination and lack of opportunities since in other sections, LGBT equality movements are covered more thoroughly. Within this section, I want to expand on the Gay Liberation Front, the Black Panther Party on Gay Equality, the lesbian caucus of NACCS and the Chicano movement, Sylvia Rivera and STAR, and the Young Lords and the Lesbian and Gay Caucus. By providing specific events and groups, this will give more in depth information on the relationship between the LGBT equality and multicultural movements within LGBT Multiculturalism.130.126.255.31 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add new section on the Importance of Urban Spaces

One key area of research missing from the existing article is information regarding the importance of urban spaces to the development of this community of people. City settings have been extremely predominant throughout the history of queer community emergence and expansion, yet somehow there is little to no mention of this. That being said, I propose to add a new section to the current page titled Importance of Urban Spaces. Under this heading I will present an overview of the city’s role in establishing queer community across the world, as well as the benefits such settings have for LGBTQs. Then, I will go on to summarize some of the more significant queer urban spaces in Europe, Asia, Australia and the United States.

General Overview

• Discussion of prime conditions in urban spaces for queer social/political movement
• Benefits of queer collectivity in city spaces (and what that looks like)

Significant Queer Urban Spaces

• Discussion, comparisons and contrasts of metropolitan queerness in various places across the world from both a social science and historical perspective
• List and description of key queer community sites in the United States specifically

Ninajaclyne (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft of Proposal Ninajaclyne (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding to pre-existing section Buying Power

I would like to edit the section of Buying Power under the LGBT Community page. What I found within in the current section is a lack of statistics, details, and more examples of the buying power that the LGBT community holds. The page does have valid information, however it is in need of more description, and possibly explanations for certain areas that are widely agreed upon. I wish to summarize the influence the LGBT community's buying power has, as well as aspects of consumerism. These two topics go well together and provide a more well-rounded view of the economy within the community.

Other subtopics I wish to introduce include demographics, advertising strategy, and the relationship between LGBT community and other communities within the consumer realm. If I could also get into branding strategies, and how it is marketed between all communities, it would relate well. Many products are gender targeted, and the LGBT community as different approaches to that area. My content will discuss internet use (potentially), everyday activities, recent buying power, consumer behavior responses, spending behavior, and diversity.

With these ideas, I can briefly touch on normative culture and its influences on the LGBT community, but I will not make an argument out of it. Jmrase (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft of Proposal Jmrase (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT Multiculturalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mlv95/sandbox Mlv95 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT community vs. gay community

I believe that the gay community should be described in a separate article, as it is only part of the wider LGBT community. There is a distinct gay male culture that is what people mean when they say the "gay community". It does not include transgendered persons. It arguably includes lesbians, but when people speak of both gays and lesbians, they usually say just that: the gay and lesbian communities. LGBT is an acronym representing four distinct groups of people. We should not have "gay community" as a synonym for "LGBT community", as "gay" only represents one of the four groups in the very title of this community. To further represent this point, the bisexual community has its own article. I would further suggest the same is done for the lesbian and transgender communities. This article should stay about all four in the title, at the very least having a broader title as a near-synonym in the lead sentence (like "LGBTQ community") and not a narrower one (like "gay community"). Sonĝanto (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sonĝanto, before you brought this matter to my talk page, I was already going to address this here at the article's talk page, where it belongs. In the future, bring an article dispute you have with me to the article's talk page, not to my talk page. To others: As seen with this edit, I reverted Sonĝanto's removal of "gay community" from the lead. Sonĝanto stated, "The LGBT community is not synonymous with the gay community, as the gay community only represents the G in LGBT. There should be a separate article entirely on the gay community, which is generally used to refer to gay male culture." And I stated, "Yes, [gay community is synonymous with LGBT community]. And 'gay community' should be in the lead per WP:Alternative title. It is also the most common name."

Sonĝanto is wrong because gay is commonly used as an umbrella term for the LGBT community, as is made clear in the Gay article, and as is clear to anyone who has significantly studied LGBT literature/the research on LGBT people. I can easily provide WP:Reliable sources showing this to be the case. While gay is used to refer to homosexual men more than to homosexual women when it comes to initialisms such as "LGBT" and similar, it does not solely or usually refer to homosexual men. Furthermore, gay community is still the WP:Common name (well, the top WP:Common name) for this article, as can be seen via a Google search. The only reason that the article should be titled "LGBT community," as it has been for years now, is per the WP:Precise policy. The terminology "gay community" is also used lower in the article (past the lead). And as for what Sonĝanto suggests about two separate articles, that would be against the WP:Content forking guideline. Similarly, we have yet to split the Bisexual community article so that there is a Pansexual community article; that would be needless/inappropriate WP:Content forking.

WP:Pinging the following editors who edit LGBT topics to weigh in on this matter: Zumoarirodoka (who recently edited the article), MrX, EvergreenFir and Roscelese. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Sonĝanto is making a reasonable argument that the term "gay community" can refer to gay male cultures and communities specifically in addition to its usage as a synonym for "LGBT community", and I wouldn't be opposed to the existence of a separate article focusing on those cultures and communities specifically (probably more of a spinoff from LGBT culture#Gay male culture than from this article). We shouldn't remove it from the lede, but it may be desirable to indicate in some way that if people got here off a redirect from "gay community", they might be looking for something else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I see what you are saying, but it seems to me that "gay" has evolved to mean something narrower than it has historically. Yes, in the past, "gay community" referred to what we would now call the "LGBT community". But the acronym "LGBT" itself, like the term "gay and lesbian", originated to bring recognition to the fact that it is not merely a community of gay people. Not only does that lead to bisexual erasure and sexism against lesbians, it also leads to a misunderstanding of the trans community (which consists of many straight persons). Conflating the LGBT community to the gay community, in my opinion, is outdated. Sonĝanto (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, yes, I haven't disputed his point that "gay community can refer to gay male cultures and communities specifically." I was only disputing his assertion that gay is not synonymous with LGBT and/or usually refers to homosexual men. Sonĝanto, gay being synonymous with LGBT is not simply a historical matter. It is still a common matter, which is why I referred to the WP:Common name policy above. I am interested in following what WP:Reliable sources state on matters such as these; I am not interested in having a WP:Activism rationale (see this section on my user page). WP:Reliable sources still use these terms interchangeably. When there is a dispute regarding terminology, or some other kind of conflict concerning terminology, then we note that in the lead and/or in a Definitions or Terminology section. See the current lead of the Intellectual disability article, for example, which notes outdated terminology and comments on it. Also take note that there is a Terminology section in that article. I wouldn't mind a Gay male culture article and/or a Lesbian community article, but there should be valid reasons to create WP:Spinout articles, as is made clear by the WP:Spinout guideline and the WP:No split guideline. And having either of those articles wouldn't mean that "gay community" shouldn't be in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me to some reliable sources that uphold your claim? Sonĝanto (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I find it odd that you asked this question, especially since I stated above, "I can easily provide WP:Reliable sources showing this to be the case.", I will soon get back to you on this matter with WP:Reliable sources. Right now, I have to focus on a few other things. But just know, just like with a recent lesbian vs. bisexual case, I never claim anything about LGBT culture (or any culture), or research, that cannot be supported by WP:Reliable sources. A lot of LGBT people don't like certain LGBT terminology and want it restricted in certain ways, whether it's the term queer, the aforementioned term lesbian, and so on. But I don't care too much about what Wikipedia editors personally think of the literature; I care about documenting the literature accurately and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be odd for me to want to see the reliable sources you claim are so easily accessible, but sure, take your time. Sonĝanto (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, am I reading you correctly? You're suggesting that the reason "gay community" and "LGBT community" are sometimes used synonymously is because English has no word for someone exclusively attracted to the same sex, rather than because (eg.) resources and cultural institutions aimed at people attracted to the same sex are most often used/participated in by people who can't take advantage of societally privileged opposite-sex unions (or, eg.) people may be unaware that sexual orientation and gender identity aren't the same, that bisexuality exists, etc.? It seems like you're seeing imprecision of language and assuming a corresponding imprecision of topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sonĝanto, I wasn't going to reply to you again until I'd provided the WP:Reliable sources and finished up some non-Wikipedia online things, but I'm responding briefly again only because Roscelese asked me question. Sonĝanto, I find your question odd because it seems that you are aware that gay and LGBT are used synonymously, but are disputing that WP:Reliable sources note that, and/or you think it's only a historical matter.

Roscelese, no, that's not what I'm stating. I'm a bit confused as to what you are asking. For example, while some people use the term homosexual to mean any same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction, and the term lesbian to mean any female same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction, those terms are also obviously used to mean exclusive same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction. So English does have a word for someone exclusively attracted to the same sex. My point to Sonĝanto about the lesbian vs. bisexual matter is what I stated in those discussions concerning it. And that point is that the term lesbian is broader than some LGBT people would like. Similarly, the term gay is broader than some LGBT people would like. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm... I see the point that gay community is a specific subset of the LGBT community, but in terms of WP:COMMONNAME and its use by WP:RS, they are sadly rather synonymous. Which I see as part of bi erasure and further marginalization of the trans and queer communities. I think what might be a decent solution is to create sections on this article detailing bi, trans, and queer communities. As they are largely invisible, I kind of doubt we'll find enough RS to create independent articles, but enough to warrant a section on the page. This is a weakness of Wikipedia... it's always behind the curve and always reflects normative/dominant structures. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So, for a concrete proposal...would y'all support adding a hatnote to this article, "Gay community redirects here. You may be looking for LGBT culture#Gay male culture" or however the stock hatnote phrases it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that a better compromise with Sonĝanto, and with other editors who view the term gay strictly, would be to move the placement of the "commonly referred to as the gay community" part so that it is not in the WP:Lead sentence, but is rather in the second sentence. It could state something like "The LGBT community is commonly referred to as the gay community, but [...]." And, of course, the "but" part is where we'd fill in the terminology discrepancy. I pointed to the Intellectual disability article above as an example of how such a lead can be, though that article does not have a good lead. And then the lower part of the article, past the lead, is meant to detail the matter. The sources that I am about to list, in year order, support what I've stated above. Generally anyway. Some of them differ slightly with regard to gay referring to homosexual men, and to what extent the term gay is used interchangeably with the term LGBT. And, yes, two sources (the "To avoid repetition" source and the "Steven Petrow" source) specifically show authors using the term LGBT and/or gay in their own ways. I also located three sources that somewhat support what Sonĝanto stated above; they are the last three sources on the list. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Click on this to see the sources.

This 2005 Understanding Gay and Lesbian Youth: Lessons for Straight School Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators source from Rowman & Littlefield, page 106, states, "Gay--has several meanings. Gay is synonymous with homosexual and most commonly refers to a homosexual male (e.g., "he's gay"), although it is often used to describe a lesbian (e.g.," she's gay"). Gay is also used as an umbrella term for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community (e.g., the gay community, a gay organization) or elements thereof (e.g., gay culture, gay studies, gay marriage)." This 2010 The Right to be Out: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in America's Public Schools source from University of Minnesota Press, page 205, states, "To avoid repetition but maintain stylistic consistency, this book often uses LGBT, gay and transgender, and gay and gender-nonconforming interchangeably as synonyms for the same groups of people." This 2011 Steven Petrow's Complete Gay & Lesbian Manners: The Definitive Guide to LGBT Life source from Workman Publishing Company, page 12, states, "Likewise, gay by itself is an umbrella term that usually refers to all lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (though not to transmen and women)." He's seemingly noting his own use of the terms, but he also talks about people recklessly using the terms, so I'm not sure. This 2011 Gender, Sexuality, and Meaning: Linguistic Practice and Politics Studies in Language and Gender source from Oxford University Press, page 242, states, "How does gay, now probably the most widely used 'umbrella' term, differ from queer? [...] By the 1990s even the mainstream politicians were talking publicly about 'gays', especially in the contexts where they wanted to be seen as inclusive. Even in 2000, however, queer, though widely used by academic theorists and political activists, was still taboo in contexts like presidential candidates' speeches. [And in 2010, queer is still mostly avoided except by academics and activists, whereas gay is commonplace.]" This 2012 Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work source from John Wiley & Sons, states, "There is no literature specifically relating to the career development or career counseling of bisexual individuals, and very little devoted to that of transgender populations. Consequently, although many scholarly works, including this one, contain the term LGBT in their titles, the content of most has been focused primarily on lesbian and gay concerns, with limited attention to career issues specific to bisexual and transgender individuals." In other words, the source is noting that the term LGBT is broad, but may be used simply to refer to gay men and lesbians. This 2013 The Handbook of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Public Health: A Practitioner's Guide to Service source from Routledge, pages RA1-PT30, states, "Terms such as LGBT, GLBT, queer, homosexual, and gay and lesbian can be used interchangeably. The importance of this nomenclature rests on the individual addressing the community and his or her personal identity and politics. Likewise, one should not assume that these terms completely capture everyone who identifies as LGBT." This 2014 Counseling for Multiculturalism and Social Justice: Integration, Theory, and Application source from John Wiley & Sons, page 88, states, "The term gay has more than one meaning. It is sometimes used to refer to gay males, and it can be used as an umbrella term to refer to the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." This 2015 Encyclopedia of American Folklife source from Routledge, page 477, states, "The gay community, an umbrella term for a diverse set of identities, encompasses groups that have been marginalized within it as well as outside it. The use of gay in scholarship is usually broader than the popular restriction of the term to homosexual men. Thus, one will encounter a coupling of a "gay and lesbian" in writing on the subject. Besides lesbians, other marginalized groups considered part of the gay community are bisexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, and [transgender people]." This 2006 The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality source from University of Chicago Press, page 38, states, "Even if no one blinks at gay as a term in common use today, contrary to what many of us in the 1970s expected, gay itself has not won wide acceptance in academic discourse -- the "g" in LGBT hardly counts -- and certainly not as applying as broadly as Boswell and others meant it to apply in 1980. Gay has entirely lost the 'liberationist' overtones it once had." This 2010 Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach, Service, Collections and Access source from McFarland & Company, page 221, notes criticism that the term gay received when applied to women instead of using gay for gay men and lesbian for homosexual women. And This 2012 Rethinking the Gay and Lesbian Movement - American social and political movements of the twentieth century source from Routledge also notes how gay came to be seen as less inclusive and the term lesbian became prominent. It goes on to discuss other LGBT terms. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also take note that when it comes to the Same-sex marriage article, we note "gay marriage" in that lead since it is a prominent WP:Alternative title, no matter that some editors and readers feel that it is inaccurate to call same-sex marriage "gay marriage" since people in a same-sex marriage might not identify as gay. Also note that we mention "gay pride flag," along with "LGBT pride flag," in the lead of the Rainbow flag (LGBT movement) article. And we currently state "commonly the gay pride flag" because that is the most common name for that flag. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to weigh in on this late, but yes, I think that that would be a good compromise, and I agree with the last point that EvergreenFir has to say about the issue. "Gay community" and "LGBT community" are often used interchangeably, and I definitely don't think they warrant two separate articles on Wikipedia, in my opinion. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 20:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine if we leave it in the lead for now, although I believe the semantic shift is evident and that gay will come to mean exclusively the narrower definition in time. Given the current state of gay rights though, I would say that what Flyer22 is saying is fair. Could we still consider making the gay community (as in the gay male community) a separate article? I really feel it has the prominence to be its own article. I say this especially because modern gay male culture arose first and was then later incorporated into the LGBT acronym. So it seems a little anachronistic to only have gay male culture described under the LGBT label. Sonĝanto (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly has the potential to become another article IMO, but I think that we should just keep the content within the existing articles for the time being. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sonĝanto, what do you think of my proposal of moving the position of the "gay community" part? I stated that we could move the placement of the "commonly referred to as the gay community" part so that it is not in the WP:Lead sentence, but is rather in the second sentence of the lead. It could state something like "The LGBT community is commonly referred to as the gay community, but [...]." And, of course, the "but" part is where we'd fill in the terminology discrepancy.

As for creating a Gay community article, it would be a WP:Content fork violation since that topic is adequately covered in the LGBT community article. If by "Gay community article," you mean "Gay male community article," which is what you indicated above, I am fine with that; I mentioned above that I would be fine with that. But, per what has been stated above, the article should be titled Gay male community, not Gay community. And if that article were created, gay male would have a better redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, that sounds good. Having a little explanation along with the term "gay community" in the lead will resolve the problem I was pointing out. As for the "Gay male community" article, I believe that article should exist. I am willing to work on it once I find the time. For now, your proposed modification to the lead sentence should suffice. Sonĝanto (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. And keep in mind that Roscelese pointed out above that there is gay male community content at LGBT culture#Gay male culture." You can clearly use some of that content as a reference point/starting point. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"GLBT community" in lead

Does this need to be in the lead of the article? Surely, as variants of the "LGBT" initialism are on the LGBT article already, this is unnecessary? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I reverted an IP on removing that bit, and it is a prominent WP:Alternative title that ideally should be noted in the lead, I won't mind if you remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I also mentioned before that "GLBT" should be mentioned/bolded in the lead of the LGBT article; it currently is not. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to variations of the LGBT acronym, I think it might be better if we had a section explaining the history of the acronym. I believe that GLBT is older than LGBT, and LGBTQ (and its several variations) have different implications and a different role in the movement than LGBT. They are all getting at a similar idea though, which I believe is justly covered by LGBT (especially considering how widespread that acronym is across Wikipedia and how not widespread its variations are). Sonĝanto (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426130947/http://www.glaad.org:80/about/index.php to http://www.glaad.org/about/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731083704/http://www.hrc.org/about_us/what_we_do.asp to http://www.hrc.org/about_us/what_we_do.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016142008/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_ISSN_0163-4089/ai_75171025/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_ISSN_0163-4089/ai_75171025/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190539/http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/8/4/594333_353231713890GayPride.html to http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/8/4/594333_353231713890GayPride.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054222/http://www.narth.com/docs/discrimination.html to http://www.narth.com/docs/discrimination.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New page for mental health and discrimination section?

I am thinking of turning the "Mental health and discrimination" section of this article into its own article. This section only talks about the effect of perceived discrimination on LGB individuals and doesn't mention transgender people at all, or specific issues such as PTSD and depression that are more prevalent among LGBT individuals. To see sources I might use for such an article, you can look at my user page! Mhvla (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhvla, we already have the Healthcare and the LGBT community article, which is where any mental health discrimination material should go and already is. So creating a "Mental health and discrimination" article would be a WP:Content fork violation. As for this article, any missing transgender material can be easily added to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712090630/http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/about-lgbt-human-rights/page.do?id=1106573 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/about-lgbt-human-rights/page.do?id=1106573

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)