Wikipedia talk:No queerphobia

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

1. Raladic (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I am more than glad to endorse this essay. My compliments to the author on how well it is composed. Obviously, queerphobia/homophobia should be eradicated from Wikipedia, as every other form of discrimination. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Loki (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Skimel (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I endorse the content of Special:Permalink/1221239371 as a Wikipedia namespace essay. Expression of queerphobic beliefs is a form of identity-based hate that prevents some volunteers and would-be volunteers from contributing. The essay gives examples that would constitute personal attacks. Some examples it lists are fringe among medicine or academic disciplines (such as philosophy). Editing with a view incompatible with Wikipedia's position on science and fringe topics can be a 'competence is required' issue. — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
6. ElleAnónime (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I endorse it in its rough shape; like with all things, I think there are particulars to fine-tune to make it maximally clear and useful. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
8. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
9. Endorse as written by this timestamp. I have read the entire essay, and I encourage others who have expressed opinions or sentiments without completely reading the essay to read it too. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
10. I've waited for the rough edges to be shaven off through collaborative editing, but now that they largely have been, and the essay is starting to crystallise a bit more, I'll happily endorse. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Discrimination in any way, shape or form has no place in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. ~Δ _{(delta • t • c)} 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
12. I believe that this is a helpful essay which can assist editors who have good intentions, but who lack detailed familiarity with LGBT topics, to recognise and deal with common forms of disruptive anti-LGBT editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-Endorsers

1. Wikipedia appears to be rapidly turning into a place with a very long list of people who are not welcome. Could we not just summarize it by saying anyone failing to subscribe to the current doctrines and orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata? FWIW, as long as WP:NOTPUNITIVE remains in force, I will not act against anyone whose beliefs I may disagree with, political or otherwise, unless their actual conduct on the project is disruptive. I for one find the recent trend in these essays deeply lamentable, and contrary to the spirit that I always assumed animated the project. (Still waiting for WP:No Communists.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Habitually oppose any "no <X group that has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia>" essays. Queen of ♡ | speak 07:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
3. While I do disagree with hating people, the line between hate and disagreement is far too blurry here. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
4. I guess I will say the same thing here I said at the MfD: The idea of having a specific WP:NONAZIS fork for sexuality is already dodgy, and of questionable utility (some people have already mentioned this). So maybe this essay is a great idea -- until you read it. The actual words written here are a political screed about how we need to purge editors who believe in "narratives" the author does not like. I've gone a hundred thousand edits under my real name without being asked about my sexual orientation, but sources close to JPxG say that all LGBT editors are not spoken for here. We should not have an essay asserting confidently that everyone who argued against its author in a MoS debate should be ejected summarily from the project. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a political thunderdome -- I am opposed to any outcome that involves any chance of people reading this and thinking that it represents official Wikipedia doctrine. jp×g🗯️ 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I agree with the spirit of what Ad Oreintem said. Personal attacks are already against the rules. The authors seem to be suggesting that, rather than banning people for personal attacks, people should be banned for personal beliefs. I strongly disagree. I guess this essay would be fine on the authors' individual Wikipedia userpages, as an expression of individual belief (like userboxes), but I think it's bizarre and counterproductive for it to be a published essay in this way, unless Wikipedia's attitude about essays is completely laissez-faire, and anything goes. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
6. A lot of what this essay calls "queerphobia" is problematic and can easily come from good faith. Yes, the problematic parts of the list could be removed, but as long as this essay stays up the problematic parts will likely be added back, because nowadays the definition of "queerphobia" has become incredibly subjective. On top of that, the "nutshell" part of the page gives me the impression that people should be banned for their beliefs, not just their edits. Reading through the !votes of endorsers, only 3 out of 8 give any sort of reason arguing why this essay should be endorsed. The other 5 just left their signature to endorse, as if this was a vote, which it's not. I would highly suggest current endorsers to add reasons for their endorsement, and new endorsers to give actual reasons instead of blanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I have often seen that, when online communities start pointing fingers against "evil" groups that must be removed from within them, the real problem is not actual hate but "Reductio ad Hitlerum" arguments. And I'm also aware that in the real world the alleged persecution of "hate" speech is actually used by dictatorships to silence their critics, such as here Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Groups known to target the LGBT community

Libs of TikTok is a person, not a group. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If we keep the section, I support removing Libs of TikTok. The rest are advocacy organizations known for pushing pseudoscience about LGBT people, Libs of TikTok is one person known for attacking people on social media. I've seen people try to cite the former category quite often, while I've yet to see (apart from very rare and quickly shut down SPAs) anyone try to cite Libs of TikTok. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of this section

Regarding my deletion of this section and the restoration by Bilorv, my problem with the list is that it looks like a call to action. If I was slightly more cynical, I might call it a Dog whistle (politics). The previous section urges people to "improve articles", and then this section presents a list of articles. The logical assumption is that readers of the essay are being asked to target those articles, and that's what doesn't seem appropriate here. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection with the previous section; the sentence that you quote from is about not engaging in off-topic debates that are unrelated to improving Wikipedia articles. The section that you removed describes its list as sources to be avoided. I can't see how it would encourage anyone to "target" those articles (whatever "target" means—do you mean "improve"?). — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The sister essays don't include such a section, and I would argue that inclusion of it here is tantamount to targeting and labeling. Let those article speak for themselves, an essay such as this is not the place to aggregate a list of groups or people it doesn't like. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The logical assumption is that readers of the essay are being asked to target those articles - I wrote quite a few of them for the record. I don't think this essay in any way encourages people to target them - the articles are already clear they're FRINGE groups, and as long as we don't suddenly declare Breitbart a RS that's unlikely to change - if anything the section bears a greater risk of directing those who like them to try and non-neutrally edit their articles to remove the mentions of misinformation.

I would argue that inclusion of it here is tantamount to targeting and labeling - those articles all have multiple RS pointing out they're known for misinformation, and the section had citations backing up that they are known for misinformation. We have had RSN discussions on about half of them off the top of my head ([1][2][3][4]), all agreeing they're FRINGE advocacy groups.

The sister essays don't include such a section - they don't need to and that's not a policy based argument. But additionally, the simple reason for that is there are active groups known for spreading misinformation about the LGBT community while less are known for spreading racist pseudoscience. If you were to draft up a list of organizations known for pushing racist/nazi povs and had RS backing that up, I'd support that being in the sister essays. I'll also note WP:FRINGE lists multiple examples of FRINGE formulations and unreliable sources (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Homeopathy (journal), Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, Astrology, Autodynamics).

To clarify, are y'all arguing that there were examples on the list that aren't known for misinformation and targeting the LGBT community? Or are y'all arguing that while they obviously all do, the essay's not the place for them? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to describe it as a list of frequently encountered sources with an irreconcilable anti-LGBT bias or which are otherwise blatantly unreliable on GENSEX matters. Various anti-LGBT groups, like the SEGM and ACPeds have names which are meant to sound like legitimate medical organizations to the lay reader. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm arguing that if they're not deemed to be reliable sources, WP:RSP should be sufficient to convey that information and duplicating information should generally be avoided per WP:REDUNDANTESSAY. It could also be argued that it's skirting policy per MOS:LABEL. My arguments are based on policy, in addition to the reality that such a section seems to be avoided in other, similar, essays. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Renamed to "No queerphobia"

As was suggested in the (briefly prematurely closed and reopened) MFD discussion, a user ([5]) suggested a better title of No queerphobia, which I believe is a better more neutral title, since queerphobia does represent the noun of the hate that the essay is trying to capture and is more in line with the title of Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Raladic (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I support this move, I was mostly ambivalent on it when naming the essay and chose queerphobes over queerphobia to keep consistency with WP:No Nazis, WP:No racists, and WP:No Confederates but I personally prefer it as No queerphobia. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the MfD notice so interested editors will be notified, but the article name change causes a redlink because it was nominated under a different title. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the redlink for the mfd notice, so we should be all good now. Raladic (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just something to bear in mind for next time, Raladic: we usually don't move articles while they're at XfD, because it can confuse various templates and scripts and/or can be seen as pre-empting the result of the discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t plan to (move it during can active xfd), but some user unilaterally moved it out into user space when the xfd was briefly closed by someone out of procedure and when I asked an admin for help they told me they are involved and didn’t want to help move it back - User talk:Girth Summit#Someone just broke all procedures and moved Wikipedia:No queerphobes. So my move to the new slightly different name happened in between that time where the MfD was briefly closed and before it was reopened again. The MfD was reopened minutes later after someone pointed out that it should not have been closed. Raladic (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I only withdrew my calling for a Move in the MFD discussion as I felt you should be free to build your own essay in the manner you chose; certainly my own belief is "no queerphobia" accords more with what I see as proper goals than the current title. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

userboxes/userpages in possible manifestations

Under the section "Possible manifestations", it includes Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBT sentiments. Are we sure that this causes disruption as much as the other items listed? Maybe we should try to specify userboxes or userpages that would cause discomfort when read by LGBT editors? Or just remove it completely? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

@Unnamed anon I disagree with your deletions. One specific problem: the source on characterization as mental illness does support the claim: legislative efforts to restrict access to care have involved the dissemination of misleading and unfounded narratives (e.g., mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence, and equating affirming care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary youth with child abuse)

Please consider self-reverting. You have provided no adequate justification for those removals.

1. No reasoning was provided for what Some1 has suggested as "improvements".
2. Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here [6] - while you deleted a statement that wasn't controversial at all.
3. Everything in life is a conscious choice [7] I have no idea what you mean. So you consciously choose to be assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth? The lead for Biology and sexual orientation seems to not agree with you removing that.
4. [8] See my quote from the source above.
5. All the rest are unexplained removals.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of telling Unnamed anon, who has made good faith edits to improve the essay (and I find his edits to be improvements), to wholesale revert, what specifically do you want added back or changed? Some1 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See my five points above. The wholesale removal of content has not been justified at all. In the case where edit summaries actually had some substance, I have outlined why I find them problematic.

This reply does not give me an impression that you have read what I wrote. Maybe you could have engaged with the points I made.

If no response had been given, I'd consider reverting these removals. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually after giving it some more consideration, I'm just going to revert the parts I disagree with (and have responded to here). A wholesale revert is quite antagonistic I suppose. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The 'Queerphobic beliefs' section (current version: [9]) actually looks pretty decent now. Thanks for striking parts of your comment and for not wholesale reverting. Some1 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about quite a few removals, particularly the ones about youth.

Removal of: That LGBT children only identify as such due to media exposure, peer pressure or "social contagion" (see Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and Acquired homosexuality). (deleted)

• The reason given[10] was I implemented the changes that Some1 suggested (suggestions here) - Some1 didn't mention this - no reason was given for deletion. Many people continuously try and push the belief that LGBT kids are turning LGBT through the media and their friend groups.

Changed text: That the LGBT community is grooming children or otherwise dangerous to them. -> That an LGBT person is automatically grooming minors or is otherwise dangerous.

• Same edit as above (and same issue of no explanation, referencing somebody who didn't mention it). The conspiracy is that the LGBT community as a whole is doing this. Also, how does an LGBT person is automatically grooming minors apply to LGBT youth?

Changed text: That trans people should be unable to change their legal gender, be excluded from gendered spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing gender-affirming healthcare. -> That transgender people should be unable to change their gender, and that gender-affirming healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible.

• Change their gender is meaningless - the issue is legal recognition of that gender.(Backed as a human right by the UN[11])
• be excluded from gendered spaces - The UN recognizes also this right[12]
• Same edit as above. No reasons were given for 1) the removal of "legal" or 2) the removal of mentioning gendered spaces. Some1 suggested removing from gendered spaces but gave no reasoning.

Removal of: That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity.

• This had the comment Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here)[13] Apart from that being nonsense (an essay on queerphobia should probably mention that, yknow, there are queer kids who you don't suddenly get a queerphobia free pass on) - accepting transgender youth is not a slippery slope to anything and its offensive to suggest otherwise. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I made these two edits [14] [15] per your feedback. Some1 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I do think we need to be somewhat more explicit about LGBT youth, as the most common queerphobic FRINGE povs I see pushed tend to frame themselves as "protecting the children". Like with social contagion - the rule of thumb for transphobic discourse is trans people under 18 are indoctrinated and groomed, while those over 18 are the ones who must be grooming them. Most queerphobia I've seen on this platform is targeted towards youth. I personally find it absurdly comical, because I transitioned as a minor, that if an editor told me "you shouldn't have transitioned" or "you are cis and were indoctrinated into being trans", they'd be blocked for the personal attack - but if they say "transgender minors should be barred from transition" or "transgender children are cis kids being indoctrinated into being trans en masse", targeting an entire demographic instead of an editor, it becomes fair game. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a bulletpoint saying: That LGBT adults are indoctrinating or grooming the youth? Some1 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that though would prefer some minor alterations: That the LGBT community or a subset of it are indoctrinating or grooming youth into being LGBT

- The main reason is because LGBT adults indoctrinate and groom youth as much as cis-het ones do and this could be read as suggesting they don't at all - the specific anti-LGBT narrative is they're making the kids LGBT. It's not anti-LGBT to point out individual cases of grooming if it's happening.

- Wrt changing LGBT adults to the LGBT community or a subset of it - similar reason to the above, the anti-LGBT narrative is that there is a coherent community (or subset, as before 2000 it was usually specified gay men and since 2000 it's more often specified as trans people) doing the indoctrination/grooming systematically rather than any individual. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and have added it [16]. Some1 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! I think the section's looking better than it originally did.

My only remaining concern is the "conscious choice" removal - publicly identifying as LGBT is a conscious choice, but so far medical consensus is that being LGBT is not (ie, sexual orientation and gender identity can't be modified and are innate). I think this view is foundational to a lot of anti-LGBT narratives because they start from the premise that one can simply choose to not be LGBT. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Added: [17] Some1 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this[18]: the removal of That transgender women who aren't exclusively attracted to men are fetishists (Blanchard's transsexualism typology). with the comment This one isn't as controversial as the others I removed, but this is hyper-specific and strange to list among a bunch of general beliefs

• 1) It wasn't among general beliefs, it was in the section for pseudoscience specifically
• 2) While I'd agree that this view is very specific, one of the key proponents of this theory James Cantor/User:James Cantor (known professionally for FRINGE lobbying on transgender issues) edited wikipedia for over a decade and, in the course of ~10,000 edits, snuck the typology into wikivoice in (at a very conservative estimate) dozens of articles (mostly citing his own letters to the editor and those of his friends). A few months ago I got one of his POV forks deleted that had stayed up for over a decade which he wrote just to promote the theory (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence concept of transsexuality).
• 3) So, TLDR, on any other website or place would we mention the typology? Honestly probably not, it went out of vogue in the mid-to-late 2000s (though has been making a comeback since 2020). However, those websites did not have one of the theory's progenitors edit it into articles for over a decade.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange to me to single out Trans women in a bullet point, but I've made this edit [19] linking "fetishistic" to Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Let me know what you think. Some1 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That works for me, and I see Roxy added it to the see also as well.

I was less concerned about this bullet point than the other ones I mentioned because it's so specific, I just thought it beared some mention somewhere given the historical context of the theory's promotion on Wikipedia.

If I could've thought of other similar theories I'd have tried to combine them and make it more general - the typology is unique because it's a FRINGE framework encompassing both gender and sexuality, while others tend to be FRINGE views of one or the other. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References

What is in a COI?

So apparently people believe that a genuine COI actually can exist when it comes to queer editors editing about queer topics. I have no idea that the term COI can be used this way. I will quote Unnamed anon who was pushing this point, and had this comment from the MfD:

[W]hile it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors).

And I can't help but feel confused by what they are really saying. Like LGBT editors can't have.. opinions on LGBT issues anymore? Another quote from Unnamed anon:

But a comment like I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of … writing … that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest, and the bullet point can easily be used to say "No I don't have a COI, this essay says so!"

And what precedent is there in suggesting people that have strong feelings about the subject have a COI? Are there feminists that have a COI in regards to feminism and the patriarchy? And are there people of color that have a COI regarding critical race theory?

So, like.. How do you even have a conflict of interest with regards to queer topics? Are there transgender stocks I can buy? Or can I get hired by the alphabet mafia? Can someone educate me on this with an example? I didn't even know that the term COI can be used for this at all. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The most charitable reading is people are imagining the situation "1) LGBT editor writes about their own company 2) the COI is brought up 3) the editor says it's not a COI because they're LGBT and point here". If that is the case, "you can't accuse people of having a COI just because they're LGBT" being taken as "you can't accuse LGBT people of having a COI ever" is a stretch reminiscent of Mr Fantastic.

The less charitable reading is they're just doubling down on the idea "LGBT people have a COI because of their identity" - which seems a reasonable read given that definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest is being said in relation to my exasperation with the FRINGE views that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists (and I publicly state on my userpage I'm a trans woman and transitioned as a kid) and their other comments such as the first quote you mention or that or be used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious. I would not take this argument that seriously, especially given only one editor seems to believe it and also thinks comments like all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists are POVs being silenced instead of FRINGE nonsense we ignore. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The very idea that queer editors cannot be unbiased on queer topics is hate speech. Are we likewise saying that straight people cannot be unbiased on biographies of straight people? White people cannot be unbiased on biographies of white people? Americans cannot be unbiased on US history and politics?

Suggestions that LGBTQ+ editors should not edit on LGBTQ+ topics or should not have opinions on policies that affect LGBTQ+ topics and contributors are not compatible with the Universal Code of Conduct and I would suggest such trolls should be considered for a community ban. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that the majority of LGBT editors are not biased on LGBT topics. I only occasionally edit LGBT topics (my primary interest is with media such as books, comics, film, tv, and games), but the few times I did, I have encountered some LGBT editors who showed very good neutrality on the topic (Tamzin comes to mind). However, I am uncomfortable with this bullet point because, as I have stated many times, this feels like an attempt to claim that LGBT editors are never biased, when that clearly is not the case. The idea that queer editors can't be biased on queer topics is hate speech, but the idea that they will never be biased at all is also bad, and the latter is the idea that I'm getting (and I'm certain others will get) from this bullet point unless there is some sort of clarification. The word "inherent" was a good addition to show that not all LGBT editors have a bias on these topics, but I think an additional clarification is needed because one word doesn't make it obvious enough.

As for your examples of Are we likewise saying that straight people cannot be unbiased on biographies of straight people? White people cannot be unbiased on biographies of white people? Americans cannot be unbiased on US history and politics?, my answer remains the same: yes, it is entirely possible for a straight editor to be biased on the BLP for a straight person, a white editor to act in bias and remove all controversy in an article for a white person, or an American editor to push a POV on US politics. It does not happen all the time, and I have personally never encountered any of these, but it can and likely has and will happen (especially the US politics example). Unnamed anon (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bias is not conflict of interest, at least not as the term is used on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COINOTBIAS, which is part of our Conflict of Interest guideline. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

COI is not merely bias, but at least from what I understand, COI is bias that affects a user's editing patterns to the point where information presented is no longer factual. Like I said, I do like the addition of the word "inherent", as it makes it clear that not all LGBT editors let their identity get in the way of editing LGBT pages neutrally. However, I still want to avoid any sort of possibility that this bullet point will be used to defend any sort of wrong edit. While one word made a huge positive difference, I fear it won't be enough. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Two things are wrong: From what I have seen, your understanding of what a COI is is different from most editors here. It is fine for you to keep that opinion, but keep that in mind in discussions e.g. when suggesting that someone has a COI because of this difference.

And the other part would be thinking that adding that bullet point serves any purpose other than to suggest that "Okay, maybe not all LGBT editors have a COI, but there are some LGBT editors on here that are just biased and I think they have a COI". From YFNS's summary above, if a person is willing to quote that bullet point in the essay to suggest that because they are an LGBT editor, they can't have a COI in the company that literally hired them to edit, they are willing to ignore any supposed "reminder" for them. "Inherent" already makes it quite clear.

So if you continue to argue for its inclusion without any new points, it probably means that you want to POV push and that is not really good. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your and YFNS's points that an editor who would ignore any sort of reminder that they may have a COI would ignore it regardless of if a notice was on this page is a good point that I did not account for. I apologize for not realizing that sooner, and I'll leave it as the word "inherent" being clear enough. The more I think about it, that one word does make the point clearer way more than I initially thought. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the WP:conflict of interest in Wikipedia terms is not dependent on the edits not being factual. I can go and add a thousand absolutely true facts about me top Nat Gertler... heck, I could even just tune what's there up to match with Wikipedia standards better... and even if every fact were correct and every edit brought it closer to guidelines, I would still have a conflict of interest. I have now edited the statement in the article, which was already linked to our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI, to display in such a way to make it clearer that we are talking about "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia terms, not whatever definition one might wish to bring to the table. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"inherently sexual"

There's been some back and forth over the phrase "That LGBT people are inherently sexual, fetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous", with me as the instigator, because L, G, and B people are sexual in the same sense that most people, including straight people, are sexual. (There are As among the Ts, of course.) That doesn't mean that they are being actively sexual at all times. What I think this is meant to get at may be better stated as "That LGBT people are inherently fetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous, and that their identified presence makes matters sexual in a way that the presence of straight people does not." Does that meet others' views of what should be covered? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I gently lean towards "inherently sexual" for 2 main reasons:

1) you can have asexual (which doesn't preclude all sexual desire)/aromatic LGB people as well as trans people (I know a surprisingly large number of asexual trans LGB people for that matter)

2) sexual is the wording of the anti-LGBT narratives. L, G, and B people are sexual in the same sense that most people, including straight people, are sexual - is definitely true, but is applying logic to an illogical argument, those making the argument are those who see straight people kissing all the time without blinking and but act like they're being strapped to a clockwork orange type chair to watch gay porn if they see a gay couple kissing or see a transgender person just walking around

I like the track of and that their identified presence makes matters sexual in a way that the presence of straight people does not because it better encapsulates the issue of the second point but it feels too wordy. Perhaps and that being openly LGBT is inherently sexual in a way being straight/cisgender isn't? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what you get into with the existing wording is that there is a range of definitions (or at least understandings) for "sexual", and while there are clinical discussions where the "sexual" and the "romantic" are clearly separated, that is not the case for much common usage. Trying to say that people with certain sexualities (including one that has sexual built into the term) are not sexual is apt to at least get a linguistic side-eye.

I am a little uncomfortable with the "openly" because some of the key examples that come to mind are queer-coded characters being treated as a problem in children's literature (forgive me, I'm a publisher, I see the world through books.) Perhaps that those perceived as LGBT is inherently sexual in a way being perceived as straight isn't? (I'm unsure the /cisgender is needed; I'm used to straight being not just hetero, but off of the alphabet list altogether.) But then I'm also trying to phrase it so that it's the situation that's sexual, not just the person. Maybe an LGBT presence makes matters sexual in a way that a straight presence does not? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

100% wrt the linguistic side eye lol.

That's a good point, thanks for raising it! And fair enough wrt "straight", I use it that way colloquially too and have to remember to be explicitly broader with lay audiences sometimes. Both those phrasing seem somewhat clunky still, partly because I think the bullets are largely clear these views are all in the eye of the beholder, but I lean towards the latter. I think that being publicly[openly?] LGBT or queer coded is inappropriately sexual [unlike being publicly straight-presenting] might work. The "inappropriately" conveys the other meaning of sexual imo.

Another part of this is the usual hypothesized victim is the child who will supposedly be damaged by seeing queer people IRL or suggestions of them in media.

Honestly, we're trying to pack so much into this I think another bullet might be called for so we can expand the point. Something like:

• That the open or subtextual presence of LGBT people or acknowledgement of them is inappropriately sexual and/or political and should be restricted/banned in the public square, media, or education

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd simplify "restricted/banned in" to "kept from", which also gets around efforts that are not legalistic in nature. Otherwise, good! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

References

I feel that the "Queerphobic beliefs" section should be properly referenced so readers can know more on the talking points. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nutshell edit

@Cambalachero, can you please revert this edit to the nutshell so we can discuss it here?[20]

I'd like to discuss and address your concerns, my main issue is the nutshell no longer makes sense as it reads It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.

The second clause of the first sentence which you removed(to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS) is necessary for the second sentence This essay expands them to make sense.

Regarding your edit summary Those are just essays, and can't be used to justify a block - this is also an essay and has the same (in)ability to justify a block. Yet, I see WP:HID often cited in blocks as a shorthand. To my knowledge, it is common for essays to mention inspirational essays (WP:NORACISTS notes how it came from WP:NONAZIS for example). As this essay is WP:HID applied to queer topics, I feel it should be mentioned.

How would you feel about something like to block editors for queerphobia as laid out in WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS? For the record, I'm fine with just mentioning WP:HID without mention of WP:NORACISTS in the nutshell as it's more directly relevant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocks that cite essays are common. Many essays are just shorthand for cogent policy/guideline-based arguments. In addition to HID, you'll see many blocks citing WP:BLUDGEON and many unblocks that cite WP:ROPE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that I see it in more detail, the idea of the "This page in a nutshell" template is to explain the main idea of the page in just a few words. The second sentence fails to do that. It's basically a summary that says "the main text says a lot of things". Cambalachero (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)