Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

"LGBT" vs "LGBTQ" people in prison

Hi all,

I've submitted a move proposal from "LBGT people in prison" to "LGBTQ people in prison" to keep the language of the article title in sync with the article, which uses "LBGTQ." An alternative is to keep the article title the same, and instead change the language of the article to "LGBT." Is there a reason to prefer "LGBT" vs "LGBTQ" for this article?

Thank you —Of the universe (say hello) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I have seen in other articles, usually it just gets kept as LGBT. Several of the sources in the body of that article actually refer to 'LGBT' however individual editors have written 'LGBTQ'. Best to sticking to the source wording for each paragraph. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT" is the standard on-wiki initialism, as well as the name of the parent article (LGBT). So I think this is standard for the titles of articles, although I've seen other variations of the initialism in the article prose itself. Not sure if there is a policy-based reason for this.

FWIW, I personally think there should be a move away from LGBT as standard; the last time I checked, LGBTQ is becoming more popular with style guides in the US and UK. But I think this would require a more centralised discussion and considering how many variants there are now, even if LGBTQ does become slightly more used, the discussion could end up being "no consensus" and effectively back to LGBT as the standard initialism for our articles.

(Hope the above makes sense). GnocchiFan (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an RFC consensus not to standardize between LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQ+/Queer, though LGBT carries a lot of intertia. There was a recent proposed move of Queer art that did not go head, but it would be harder to get consensus for a move away from LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for pointing me to that! GnocchiFan (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the move proposal. Thank you for the thoughtful responses! —Of the universe (say hello) 17:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Requested move 26 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Which of these sources' coverage would be considered significant for the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation?

This discussion was originally started at the Wikipedia help desk, but was moved here at the suggestion of another contributor. The original discussion has subsequently been closed for the sake of the move.

• Cartoon Brew A History of the 'Gay Agenda' in Animation
• The Sundial (California State University Northridge) The effect of LGBT characters on our generation
• Entertainment Weekly From Steven Universe to Voltron: The fight to bring LGBTQ characters to kids' shows
• The Mary Sue We Need to Raise the Bar for LGBTQ+ Representation in Animated Shows
• Variety GLAAD Media Awards: Judith Light, Wilson Cruz Among Winners
• Deadline Hollywood GLAAD Announces Nominees For The 34th Annual GLAAD Media Awards

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy: see WP:RSP for several of these. Deadline, Entertainment Weekly and Variety are as good as they come; I'm personally in favour of The Mary Sue but it typically needs to be attributed in prose; opinions on student newspapers are mixed but I might argue in favour of the Sundial piece as it's citing academics who would be self-published experts (we just have to believe it's reliable to quote them accurately); Cartoon Brew looks good to me. Is there opposition to use of the sources or is this just to seek another opinion on something you're drafting? — Bilorv (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this is for a draft for which I've produced a source assessment table, though the table was created in response to my first submission being declined. (the person who declined my draft did thank me for the table though) The list above contains the sources I've already been able to determine as being independent and reliable, (though I excluded the SPLC Intelligence Report as that source is from the 2000s and would've only been able to cover the 2002 or 2005 controversies if it even covered Nick at all) and all I'd like to figure out now is whether any of the independent, reliable sources the draft cites contain significant—perhaps even sustained—coverage of the topic. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I still want to know if any of these sources constitute significant coverage

The only response I've been given so far focused solely on reliability, completely dodging my question. When I asked, I had already counted all the sources above as being both reliable (per WP:RSP or existing comments) and independent of the topic, so if any of these sources are considered to cover the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation in detail, they could help a potential article meet the general notability guideline. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that any of those sources cover the topic of "Nickelodeon and LGBT representation" in detail? For instance, you link to this Variety article on the 2022 GLAAD Media Awards. Can you find any in-depth coverage of Nickelodeon & LGBT representation in this article?

I've just skimmed the articles, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that any of them obviously constitute significant coverage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Each insight helps to get closer to determining whether Nickelodeon and LGBT representation is as much of an article-worthy topic as its Cartoon Network counterpart. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say it surely is as article-worthy as the Cartoon Network counterpart, as the person who created that article in the firs place... But, in terms the comment by Caeciliusinhorto-public, its certainly possible there's more coverage out there. The key is turning it from text which comes from list entries (which is how I originally constructed it) to those which aren't. Here are some articles which talk about Nick and LGBTQ+ rep which I know:

• TV animators were forced to scrap LGBTQ-inclusive storylines due to a culture of fear. Experts say fans are changing that., Insider (although this is Insider, this is related to the Insider database of LGBTQ+ characters in children's animation. While I have issues with the database, the articles by Abbey White are pretty good and this one specifically talks about Mysticons and LGBTQ+ rep in that series, specifically between the characters Kitty Boon and Zarya Moonwolf in Mysticons. (White's other articles don't mention Nick but could be interesting for background: "Kids' cartoons have more LGBTQ representation than ever before — but only if you pay for it" and "LGBTQ characters of color are making animation history — but creatives of color can't escape the industry's discriminatory past")
• Understanding Korra’s Queer Ending, about The Legend of Korra (LOK)'s ending with Asami Kato and Korra holding hands. This was briefly mentioned in "Feeling Sapphic: How Velma Shaped Lesbian Culture" from Bitch magazine. Also see: How a Nickelodeon Cartoon Became One of the Most Powerful, Subversive Shows of 2014 in Vanity Fair, "Queerness Shines in “She-Ra” and Other Animated Shows" in Bitch magazine (has a subsection about LOK), "Legend of Korra Walked So Queer Characters on Kids’ TV Could Kiss" in Vulture, How Legend of Korra’s Queer Ending Changed Cartoons Forever in Them, 'The Legend of Korra': Why The Show's Ending is an LGBTQ+ Milestone in Newsweek, and "How ‘The Legend of Korra’ changed the landscape of queer representation in animated shows in Washington Post
• New Transformers Series Introduces Its First Nonbinary Robot in Kotaku
• Nickelodeon Actor Opens Up About His “Transgender Journey”
• Nickelodeon's Danger Force Makes History After Casting Trans Teen in Out
• LGBTQ Pride Touted During A Nickelodeon ‘Blues Clues’ Song on Deadline Hollywood. Also see "Blue's Clues & You new alphabet song recognizes LGBTQ community: 'P is full of Pride'" in Entertainment Weekly.
• “Paw Patrol” franchise introduces its first non-binary character on LGBTQ Nation. Related article in The Advocate: "‘Paw Patrol’ Spinoff Gets Nonbinary Character and the Right Freaks Out"
• Rocko's Modern Life Netflix movie will feature prominent trans story arc in Entertainment Weekly (this was a film produced by Nick). Nick Romano has been on top of representation for YEARS and has written a LOT of articles about representation, at least from what I've observed.
• From Nickelodeon to Disney: children's TV leads the way for LGBT characters in The Guardian
• Nickelodeon’s ‘Loud House’ to Feature Married Gay Couple in Variety
• A Secret 90s LGBTQ+ Nickelodeon Character Helped Make A Great First Step
• Nickelodeon Celebrates Pride With LGBTQ-Themed Images of Spongebob and More in The Wrap and an article in ScreenRant related to this, and a HuffPost article entitled "The Truth Behind Nickelodeon's Pride Post About SpongeBob

The GLAAD reports are good, but from my experience they primarily only briefly discuss characters, and they rarely focus on animation (which is mostly where the LGBTQ+ rep for Nick series had been I believe). I think this list of sources is at least a good start. Historyday01 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes

Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:

• Born Naked (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Glamazonian Airways
• ShakesQueer
• The DESPY Awards
• Conjoined Queens
• Divine Inspiration (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Prancing Queens
• Hello, Kitty Girls!
• And the Rest Is Drag

Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"And the Rest Is Drag" at AfD

Related to an above section, "And the Rest Is Drag" has been nominated for deletion.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people

Please can the above be checked by members of this WikiProject? Page was originally at LGBT reproduction and included Omegaverse speculative fiction, but if anyone can help find some good sources for the current title and scope I would greatly appreciate it 🙂 GnocchiFan (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles stats

Would it be worth adding something like this onto one of the project pages? I know some of the other projects like to show stats to motivate people to create more biographical articles. Use Source Editor to edit/copy the code to wherever you want to use it.

As of 18 June 2024, there are 5,773 articles within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles, of which 51 are featured and 121 good articles. This makes up 0.08% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.47% of featured articles and lists, with 0.3% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 16,130 pages in the project.

It could also be done for all LGBT articles:

As of 18 June 2024, there are 25,632 articles within the scope of LGBT articles, of which 138 are featured and 587 good articles. This makes up 0.37% of the articles on Wikipedia and 1.27% of featured articles and lists, with 1.48% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 70,852 pages in the project.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this as someone off-Wiki asked me whether it could be done. Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I think this is a great thing for us to have somewhere in this WikiProject! GnocchiFan (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 6 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 6 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mahoney

About a month ago, an anonymous IP made an edit to actor John Mahoney's article, following up on the statement in the "Personal life" section that "To the surprise of much of the public, when he died, many tributes noted that he had lived privately as a gay man and was a well-known fixture on the Chicago LGBTQ scene" with the strange assertion that this was likely a lie concocted by LGBTQ activists due to "opposition" to the heteromasculinity of Martin Crane.

Now, firstly, LGBTQ people have very real issues sometimes with how we are portrayed in film and television, but there has never in all of recorded history been even one single, solitary example of the LGBTQ community ever being "opposed" to the basic existence of heterosexual characters. And even more importantly, it's frickin' Frasier — why on earth would LGBTQ people ever have to make up lies about the sexuality of John Mahoney just to get LGBTQ representation out of a show that already had David Hyde Pierce, Dan Butler and Edward Hibbert in it? Not to mention that John Mahoney himself also appeared in the gay-themed film The Broken Hearts Club, and played a gay character in an episode of ER, so why would we ever need to make stuff up about him just because of Frasier? And besides, I've known more than a few gay men in my day who openly wished their own father had been like Martin Crane, because he unconditionally loved his sons even if he didn't always understand them. Why would LGBTQ people ever have a problem with that? So the statement just doesn't make much sense at all, and obviously wasn't supported by sourcing for it.

Obviously I've removed the claptrap, but the fact that it survived a month in the article without getting noticed implies that it slipped a lot of watchlisters' attentions. So I just wanted to ask if a few more people could help look out for this in case somebody tries to readd it in the future. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alan Joyce (businessman)#Requested move 10 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alan Joyce (businessman)#Requested move 10 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

LGBT people by identity / by variation

Please comment in this discussion:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_17#Category:LGBT_people_by_identity. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

New article: The Abbey (bar)

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

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" at AfD

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

Removing pronouns from articles

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

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

From WP:GENDERID:

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't read the sources, but the article seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly. Draft looks nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I already rearranged around your statement that she was "born male", which is not the current manner of discussing such things; current usage prefers that we treat the trans identity as always having been accurate, just misread. I raise my eyebrow a bit at the use of Confidentials as a source, as it's primarily a restaurant review site; were the subject a living person, I would object more strenuously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the changes, they look great! I’m mostly using them for minor things and as backup, because I don’t have access to her aboutself writing FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move: Genital mutilation and modification → Genital modification

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

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

TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare

Hi all

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

Thanks very much

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

Content dispute at International Transgender Day of Visibility

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

Hi. I discussed the dispute with the experienced editor involved, who raised relevant WP policy considerations, and I think we came to an understanding: it's fine to add a section on "Reception" to TDOV that would include positive and negative responses and criticisms, including afaik the political controversy you sought to include. I also added some content on criticisms of TDOV's visibility focus by Black trans activists and scholars. Please let me know if you disagree or find this useful, etc. ProfGray (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The confluence of the two events was a notable event that got substantial press coverage, but the wording is terrible and not in the slightest neutral. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please reassess GaLTaS article

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

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

FYI - User:Bohemian Baltimore made some sweeping categorizing changes

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

Adding to this, they have specifically created Category:LGBT intersex people and Category:LGBT asexual people and multiple subcategories in those two that may need to be nominated for deletion (probably with the exceptions of Category:Transgender asexual people, Category:Asexual non-binary people, and the corresponding intersex transgender and non-binary categories, which were preexisting) ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also noticed that in the Category for LGBT people, part of the description reads "Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case." This may have contributed to the decision to make multiple new categories. Perhaps this is something we should discuss clarifying? ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has raised these changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7. A tremendous amount of editor time has been consumed in recent months by editors making sweeping, undiscussed changes to the LGBT people categories that subsequently get undone at WP:CFD.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5 (ongoing)] This doesn't seem like an especially productive way of doing things.

This got me thinking again about the arguments for implementing a shift from LGBT to LGBTQ+ on the basis of improving clarity and accuracy. I've added my thoughts on that at Talk:LGBT § Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME.--Trystan (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-binary gay category

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

@Giovanni 0331: tagging you since you created Category:Transgender gay men --MikutoH ^talk! 00:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this category existing, but I believe a name like Category:Non-binary gay people would make more sense. I saw you added this category to two pages I watch (Alex Newell and Toby Marlow), both of whom I think would object to being classified as men. Aerin17 (t • c) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with Aerin, I am not sure Shea Couleé identifies as a non-binary man as they go by they/them and she/her pronouns out and in drag respectively. This category's value is in capturing people who specifically identify as non-binary men, it should be used more carefully Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the comments here. I think "Category:Non-binary gay people" would be a better name for the category. Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed a couple more of the people categorised, a lot of this is just misgendering unfortunately. Even if it's in good faith this mostly needs to be reverted. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For BLP safety at the very least, I am going to remove anyone without he/him pronouns. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for y'all's input. I fixed the category in the biographies. However, "gay people" includes lesbians, right? I categorized as such. I also noticed Category:Gay people was deleted. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why even create something with the "non-binary men" or "non-binary women" strings? It feels disruptive, to say the least. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move

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

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

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

Requested move at Talk:Classification of transsexual and transgender people#Requested move 7 April 2024

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

ArbCom discussion on protection for Gender and sexuality articles

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

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

Death of Nex Benedict

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

Changes include e.g.

examples of changes to the article between 6 April and 11 April

removal of reliably-sourced content from the lead with inaccurate edit summary [1] "removing unfactual claim" (it is well sourced that family members had access to the full report when making their 14 March statement) removal of one of the substantially reported lasting impacts of the event from the lead [2] with edit summary "Dept. of Education response doesn't need to be mentioned in lead" removal of reliably-sourced content from a Benedict vigil reported by NBC News, At the Owasso vigil, one participating friend said, "I want to start off by saying that Nex was transgender, and he used he/him pronouns" and "He was so much more than his transness." with an edit summary "removing quote which is redundant and violates MOS:GENDERID pronoun rules" [3] (this is despite the well-sourced note in the lead of the article about Benedict's preferences and the text of MOS:GENDERID) removal of reliably-sourced details (e.g. an interview with a school resource officer in the ER is now "a subsequent interview with police"), removal of content emphasized by reliable sources (e.g. Benedict telling the officer "I got jumped"), move of content so it does not reflect chronology of statements/events reported by reliable sources (e.g. Sue Benedict reporting past conduct by the other students towards Nex Benedict early on in the interview, after Nex said "I got jumped"), with an edit summary stating "rearranging ordering of events to be chronological" [4] (there has been some discussion previously related to this, and it is a particularly challenging area of the article) removal of an ACLU statement with an edit summary "removing primary source" [5] (no indication of an attempt to find secondary coverage) removal of reliably-sourced content not included elsewhere in the article with a generally inaccurate edit summary "removing stuff mentioned in investigation section" [6] (the request for a DOJ criminal investigation is not mentioned in the Investigation section, and the brief mention of the Dept of Education request is context) mass-removal of reliably sourced content [7] with the edit summary "removing non-notable reactions" (some of the removed content received international news coverage, and per WP:NNC, The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.) change to the structure of the article [8] with the edit summary "rearranging order of sections to put hard facts first" mass-removal of reliably-sourced content, with national coverage by the Associated Press and USAToday [9], including but not limited to content and a quote emphasized with secondary commentary as "one of the more poignant moments of the event" by USA Today: Hundreds of people attended an Oklahoma City vigil, where a speaker asked queer adults in attendance to raise their candles to identify themselves to youth in the audience, and said, "This is your family. These are the people who have your back. These are the people who made it through their teenage years and came out on the other side. They are the ones who are living healthy, good lives. You are not alone – do you understand? You are not alone." mass-removal of reliably-sourced content with secondary and national coverage (i.e. nationwide Benedict vigils generally, Benedict vigils reported in groups, reliable sources about various Benedict vigils) [10] with the edit summary "removing undue details -- no need for a laundry list of all the cities or mention of umbrellas". Reliably-sourced content that was removed also included and the Parasol Patrol, a nonprofit LGBTQ+ support organization that uses items such as umbrellas to form buffers between environments such as schools and anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrators. removal of attributed content from lead, replaced with not what Benedict's family said [11], with inaccurate edit summary "concision and precision in lead" (precision might be quotes?) restructure Reactions section to remove chronological order (this has discussed previously and opposed on the article talk), remove existing subheadings, create new subheadings that do not reflect subheading contents, etc, with the edit summary [12] "trim and rearrange" (some reactions to the autopsy report have also been re-segregated, this content had previously been per WP:STRUCTURE included in the related autopsy section according to NPOV policy) removal of a quoted reaction from Olivia Gray, a citizen of the Osage Nation and Chair of the Board of Directors for the Northeast Oklahoma Indigenous Safety and Education Foundation (NOISE) to The Advocate [13], with the edit summary "Olivia Gray's opinion on this is not relevant to the article" (This source was discussed on the article talk, during pre-discussion about whether to move the article title from Death of Nex Benedict to Suicide of Nex Benedict [14]) mass-removal of reliably-sourced content [15] with the edit summary "making reactions more concise" (removed content includes But nobody should have to be brave just to be themselves. from Biden's statement on Benedict, and all content related to Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation and their statement, which had been reported by NBC News) mass-removal of reliably-sourced content [16] with the edit summary "concision" (includes removal of a quote including criticism of the medical examiner's office)

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

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

Cass Review

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

I think a problem we're gonna see in the article itself is that WP:MEDRS might be mis-applied to suppress criticism. We should, though, be aware that Cass is a primary source and MEDRS says Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, so we should be watchful of this widely-criticised hatchet-job being accepted uncritically in other articles about gender.

Commentary links that should meet RS:

• Michael Bachelard; Aisha Dow (10 April 2024). "Contentious UK gender medicine report prompts reflection, outrage in Australia". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 10 April 2024. — the quote from University of Melbourne associate professor Ada Cheung, at the end of the article, would probably meet WP:MEDRS, I would guess
• Tweet from long-time trans campaigner Roz Kaveney criticising Wes Streeting's endorsement of Cass: Roz Kaveney [@RozKaveney] (April 10, 2024). "This praise of a biased tendentious thoroughly meretricious report indicates how unfit for high office Wes Streeting is. Does he endorse the utterly unevidenced claim that people should be prevented from making life-changing decisions before the age of 25? #SackWesStreeting" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Some opinion pieces providing analysis that might pass WP:RS:

• Journal article: Cal Horton (14 March 2024). "The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK's approach to healthcare for trans children". International Journal of Transgender Health. doi:10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249.
• Opinion piece from a trans barrister, but about growing up trans, so it's a legitimate criticism: Robin Moira White (10 April 2024). "What the Cass Review fails to tell us about growing up trans". The Independent. (See also paywall bypass link)
• Opinion piece from non-binary investigative journalist: Sasha Baker (11 April 2024). "The British government is throwing young trans people under the bus". Dazed.
• Opinion piece from trans journalist: Lee Hurley (10 April 2024). "The Cass Review: A government-sanctioned attack on trans lives". Trans Writes.
• Opinion piece from trans journalist (with a slightly misleading headline): Freddy McConnell (11 April 2024). "Hilary Cass's proposals are mostly common sense. She must reject anti-trans bias with the same clarity". The Guardian.
• Thread by assistant professor in nursing University College Dublin University College Dublin: John Gilmore [@GilmoreJNurse] (April 10, 2024). "The #CassReport has a number of significant methodological flaws in how it approaches evidence, and the ideological drive behind it. I cannot stress enough how much I want more research to be conducted in sexual & gender minority health - but this cannot be used to withhold care" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
• Interview with mother of trans teen: Robyn Vinter (10 April 2024). "Mother criticises 'agenda from above' after release of Cass report". The Guardian.
• Tweet from head of GIRES: Cat Burton [@CatBurton_UK] (April 10, 2024). "In my role as chair of @GIRESUK I was invited to consult with the Cass review. After three discussions it was obvious that the review had been written before we started. She totally discounted evidence from trans people from the basis of knowledge or lived experience. Useless" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Press releases providing analysis:

• "UK: Cass review on gender identity is being 'weaponised' by anti-trans groups" (Press release). Amnesty International UK. 10 April 2024.
• "Press release: The Cass Review is bad science and should not be taken seriously by policymakers" (Press release). TransActual. 11 April 2024.
• "Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa" (Press release). Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa. 11 April 2024.
• "Our interim response to the Cass report" (Press release). Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia. 12 April 2024.
• "TSN statement on Cass Review Final Report" (Press release). Trans Safety Network. 12 April 2024.

— OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move

An editor has requested that Nemo (rapper) be moved to Nemo (singer), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Why just LGBT?

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

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

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

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

Definition of marriage

As it stands, I think the above article reads as an anti-gay marriage POV fork (not sure about the reliability of the source used for the quote used within) with a lot of outdated sources. Possibly due a merge into the main Marriage article or maybe a rewrite, was wondering what members of this WikiProject think about it? GnocchiFan (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently it doesn't seem like a particularly useful article, and the article for marriage already has a more useful section on definitions. I think a merge would make sense, unless someone wants to substantially expand the article to detail definitions of marriage across time, culture, etc. ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose a merge to Marriage#Definitions. Probably most of it will be cut before/after that merge. Wracking ^talk! 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted a big honking quote in the middle of the page, which was sourced to a page that was a mirror of a 2003 version of a page that was turned into a redirect in 2004. The use of a mirror made that WP:CIRCULAR; the 2003 article cited it to a a no-longer extant page of talking points for the Concerned Women of America, not a proper analytic source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that Definition of marriage is a POV fork that is entirely the one-day work of a single editor, I do not think restoring the redirect to Marriage#Definitions would be controversial, so it should not require an AFD discussion to just go ahead and do so. The target section is in much better shape than the fork, and I do not see any content that would be worth consideration for merging.--Trystan (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks for the suggestions and edits! I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and restored the redirect to Marriage#Definitions. If anyone wants to flesh out a halfway decent article on different definitions of marriage around the world and in different cultures, I would not be opposed to re-creation. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for taking the initiative. Wracking ^talk! 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Queerphobes

I just published Wikipedia:No Queerphobes, an essay in the vein of WP:NONAZIS, WP:No Racists, WP:No Confederates, and WP:Hate is disruptive. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on it! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this essay. Looks great as a central reference point. Raladic (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a blanket reference to items of such concern as WP:FRINGE, as some of these views are sadly common. Some common beliefs are scientifically fringe, but some of what's being addressed is not a matter of science but of policy and belief. Not sure how best to address that.

I would suggest that "That marriage should only be available to heterosexual people." be edited to "...heterosexual couples", because for many of objectors to same-sex marriage, it's the gender of the participants and not the set of desires that is the problem with marriage; they are fine with a man and a woman who lack romantic attraction to each other getting married. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a useful essay. I've made these revisions, mostly focused on making the text flow (also elaborating somewhat on the various admin/arbitration noticeboards and enforcement mechanisms). I hope these are helpful.

I agree with Nat that some further clarification or specification may be required as to what is considered FRINGE, as opposed to constructive and neutral editing about highly flammable issues. Unfortunately transphobia (and all its related pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories) are popular in the same ways homophobia and racism were in the 50's, particularly with the British media, government, and medical establishment working to prop them up. Declaring them as unequivocally false/unverifiable will probably invite more controversy than Wikipedia:No racists. If nothing else, some citations might be in order. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice and the help, particularly the article cleanup and arbitration expansion Roxy I love how it flows now!

I just tried to split the pseudoscientific narratives out and add some sources, ProveIt stopped working for me so the refs are a little messed up lol. I've got a busy day (but woke up early with time to kill) so won't be able to return to it until tonight. I'd appreciate thoughts on if the additions help clear things up wrt WP:FRINGE! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the capital Q is necessary in the title - it ought to be in sentence case, no? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:No queerphobes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Damian Hubbard, from Mean Girls

I've created Damian Hubbard, if any project members are interested in improving articles about LGBT fictional characters and film/theatre. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Queer erasure#Requested move 18 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Queer erasure#Requested move 18 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Legal gender

I think that recent edits are biased and somewhat unordered. Sharouser (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a student editor, so it's not surprising that it has references but not in-line citations, and that it does indeed have a POV (even if its one that many of us agree with.) I would recommend dealing with this editor directly; they are clearly finding their way around. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes concerning the essay Wikipedia:No queerphobes. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some help with Bathroom bill?

Hi all

I would really appreciate some help improving Bathroom bill, as far as I can see the main issues are

• It is extremely America focussed, there are many laws in the UK, France etc which are similarly aiming to descriminate
• There is no real historical context given, these kinds of arguments have been used for a long time (I added some more info on the talk page)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pushback from Wiki editors regarding "notability" and "relevancy"

Hello, all. I'm Jo (they/them), and I wanted to open up a discussion on pushback people in this group may have received from Wiki editors or even the site itself regarding LGBT topics. I'm especially interested in the ways the "relevancy" and "notability" policies for the site could be used to discriminate against unknown/marginalized/understudied histories.

As an archivist, I come across a multitude of primary sources on queer history in rural areas/American Midwest/American South every day, but very little secondary sources discuss these topics simply because these histories are understudied by academia/journalism/etc. Collection finding aids could count as a secondary sources, but LGBT-centric archival collections are only a small percentage of queer historical preservation. Oral histories, newspaper clippings, and other archival materials would only count as primary sources, I'd imagine.

I'm wondering if these policies lead to an endless feedback loop of sorts, such as "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources" --> "There are not enough secondary sources because not many people know about this" --> "Not many people know about this because its not on Wikipedia" --> "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources." If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest.

Any input here would be very much appreciated, whether for giving advice or just to rant about your experiences with these policies. If there are specific pages out there that are examples of "notability" and "relevancy" being cited in controversial/highly contested talk pages, all the better. Thanks for your all's time! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our job is not original research, but I am grateful that this is the case. It is very valuable that we have a very well-defined responsibility as regards LGBT subjects vis à vis knowledge at-large, which complements those working in other areas, including doing that much-needed original research. We can't right great wrongs, but we can make people much more complexly aware about how wrongs are being righted. Remsense诉 16:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, side note: have you looked at our sister project Wikiversity? I think editors should make a habit of recommending it to people who are interested in doing original research or presentations of information, and the best way to make a sister site to Wikipedia more widespread in its use is to put valuable stuff like what you've been working on there somehow. Just throwing that out there! Remsense诉 17:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I had not heard of Wikiversity, would you recommend I start my own original research page? And could a Wikiversity page be cited on a regular Wikipedia page, like "Primary sources such as The Indianapolis Recorder allude to an event held at this ballroom in 1933, advertised as a 'pansy ball.'"[citation to Wikiuniversity link here]. Would that still violate "no original research" rules on Wikipedia? Thanks so much! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, absolutely no-one has heard of Wikiversity, & even fewer read it. I wouldn't bother. And no, you can't cite it here. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In part to avoid intractable issues like circular referencing, user-generated websites in general are almost never considered reliable sources, unfortunately. But I think there's a lot of value in putting together some treatment exploring this subject, I would personally want to read and share it! Not enough people have heard of Wikiversity, but I think it has a lot of potential culturally to be a place where independent researchers share their work. Remsense诉 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're facing is not just a notability issue, it's an WP:original research issue -- to take a bunch of primary sources and provide analysis is really not what Wikipedia is here for. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal. It actually does seem to correct the world's imbalance in topics a bit by having fairly achievable standards for notability. And I would like to think that these standards can actually be an incentive to do original research in the places that call for it -- if you can get articles on this into two appropriate journals, hey, there's probably room for a Wikipedia article on it! (But certainly I've run into many occasions where someone is arguing that there should be more attention paid to Topic X -- and they're generally right -- and that Wikipedia is therefor the place to do it, and they're wrong, we're meant to be a lagging indicator, not a leading one.)

Whether newspaper clippings are primary really depend on what they are and what they are being used for. Certainly, newspaper articles are used as references in plenty of Wikipedia article. But a two-inch clipping from 1930 about Mary and her longtime companion Shirley opening a new grain store in Dubuque might be a useful reference in an article on Shirley, but it doesn't do much for us for an article on Lesbian Depression-era Agriculture. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Most of my research thus far, if I edit it to Wikipedia, would add context to already existing articles in my area. These articles (usually specific streets, places of business, or historical sites in my city) don't have any mention of the LGBT history held in these places, simply because people don't know or have not thought to add it to Wikipedia. Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion." I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, I just want all my basis covered before I fight to include what I've found. Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY explains that you can use primary sources, you just have to use them with care. That doesn't guarantee that someone else may not see the material covered there as being of insufficient import to the matter at hand, but that just puts it to the normal level of editor discussion. I realize that is not comforting; much of Wikipedia editing is not some simple application of mechanical rules, but building consensus. An announcement that Thus&Such Drag Ball will be held at This Location is far less effective than showing import than a history of drag balls mentioning it, and that less effective than a history of This Location. This will be worked out on a case by case basis. Give it a try, and be willing to accept that it may not work out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion."

Sorry to throw yet another complex policy into the mix, but what you are thinking about here is less a question of original research (though depending on what your primary source actually says there could be an original research issue) than due weight. (Of course from a practical perspective of "will this edit stick", other major considerations are how good the article currently is and how actively it is maintained.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest" – it's less about conflict of interest, and more that sources need to be 'reliable' secondary sources (e.g. academic journal, book or sometimes news outlet depending on the coverage). Also, notability guideline does not determine the content within articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. Content within an article is subject to WP:DUE guidelines. People commonly confuse the two. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go pretty easy on things like demos & protests. Key public sites have loads of these, & few will stick in the article, however important the participants thought them. But the current Gaza-related ones may be exceptions. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

LGBT-owned business

Wikipedia has Black-owned business and Category:Black-owned businesses. Thoughts on creating LGBT-owned business and Category:LGBT-owned businesses? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support ! I think it is definitely a notable topic and defining category, there is a lot of coverage in the media. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, both! I've got the ball rolling at LGBT-owned business. Collaboration welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please help populate Category:LGBT-owned businesses appropriately! Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just helped populate it and also expanded the lead of the article, I did a quick search for "Queer-owned" since that is an alternative term for it and tagged some of the businesses into the category as well. I also created the redirect Queer-owned business for it. Raladic (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I think we should add mention and redirects for Gay-owned business and Lesbian-owned business, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the Fictional LGBT+ characters category

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. Apologies in advance if it's not. I was wondering if the Category:Fictional LGBT characters is still applied when a character is depicted as LGBTQ+ in another piece of media that exists in a different universe from their original appearance? I assume yes, because articles cover their wide appearances in their respective franchises. This seems to be the case with Harley Quinn, who is explicitly LGBT+ in the comics, but not in the cartoon she originally showed up in. But I cannot find or think of other examples. If it's valid to tag an article as such, does anyone have something from the manual of style which confirms this? Thank you. GenetKauto (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if sources back that they are this in some particular media then it is appropriate. The important part is that we have a reliable source cited in the artickle to support the categorization.

As for your specific example of Harley Quinn - They are already tagged as Category:LGBT characters in animated television series and Category:LGBT characters in animation which are more precise sub-categories of Category:Fictional LGBT characters, but you could add them to Category:LGBT characters in comics if they are indeed also represented as such in comics. Raladic (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. :) GenetKauto (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft

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

I am inclined to agree that the terminology at times is a bit inconsistent. I think the use of the word "transvestite is outdated, but that it is appropriate because it better conveys the language used by Hirschfeld et al at the time, and to retain the language used in the sources. The use of the word transsexual vs transgender seems arbitrary and I feel it would be better to use the word transgender consistently, since it is generally more used. The phrase cross-dresser is also a bit dated I suppose, but so long as it links to the cross-dresser page I would not change it. HenrikHolen (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)