Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archived discussion 2 Categorization and duplication 3 Mixing criminal and non-criminal categories that are semantically similiar 4 Propose change from "Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality" to "Categorization/Gender, ethnicity and sexuality" 5 Examples 6 Occupation by religion categories 7 Race 8 List of heterosexual musicians 9 gay literature != literature by LGBT writers 10 Sexuality by inference?

[edit] Archived discussion

• Archive 1 -- Discussion from 2005 about creating these guidelines

[edit] Categorization and duplication

This issue was settled at Wikipedia:Categorization a while ago. There is now consensus that there are good reasons to sometimes allow category duplication. I'm not sure how to change these guidelines to reflect this change. It seems that most of the discussion about ghettoization conflicting with categorization rules is now moot. --Samuel Wantman 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixing criminal and non-criminal categories that are semantically similiar

Currently there is a "list of courtesans and prostitutes". A subject BLP self-described as an "escort" but not a "prostitute" has caused a quandary. A solution is to expand the list to include "Courtesans, escorts and prostitutes". But it begs the question: does creating such a category make an association between prostitutes and courtesans that violates WP policy? Is prostitute (a criminal) being associated with courtesan (non-criminal) a problem? --Tbeatty 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

'Prostitute' is not intrinsically criminal, because prostitution is legal in many parts of the world. --Calair 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose change from "Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality" to "Categorization/Gender, ethnicity and sexuality"

This may sound petty, but the terms 'race' and 'ethnicity' aren't interchangeable. If you look up African American, one of the 'races' listed, you find an ethnic group. Race is just a leftover from the Eugenics movement that doesn't mean anything at all. Ethnic groups are distinguishable cultural groups, and should be used instead of 'race', which is highly subjective. You won't have to change anything but the name of the article. What do you think? Black-Velvet 09:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not petty at all. If there are no objections, I will rename in a few days. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if we are going to tell people not to categorise by race, it still makes sense to mention that in the title of the page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Who came up with this example: "[etc. and] 'Indian' for a native person are not appropriate terms."? Who says "Indian" is inappropriate? When we were renaming the old Native Americans article, we came to the conclusion that there is no substantial difference in the appropriateness of "American Indian" or "Native American". I noticed, reading Charles Mann's 1491 recently, that the author uses "Indian" more often than not.

Also, "Eskimo" might or might not be offensive, but not all Eskimoes are Inuits, so it won't do to simply replace one with the other.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Indian, it is not appropriate in a category name to use terms that are not consistently accepted. You have to default to the least problematic naming option at all times — even if some native Americans self-identify as "Indian", if others reject it or find it offensive then it cannot be used as the default term for all of them.

And nobody ever said it was always acceptable to replace Eskimo with Inuit — what was said is that "Eskimo" cannot be used in a category name that's meant to be inclusive of Inuit. If you want to use "Eskimo" in a category name referring exclusively to Alaskan Yupik or Inupiat people, then fine, go right ahead. But Canadian Inuit are not under any circumstances to be included in any category that has "Eskimo" in its name. Bearcat 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a fact that some Indian people find the term "Native American" offensive. I've never seen any evidence that one term is more likely than the other to cause offense.

I have no problem in principle with not using "eskimo" to refer to Canadian Inuit people. This leaves no term embracing all such groups available for use in Wikipedia, though, implying that a category such as Category:Eskimos must be replaced with something involving a multi-word construction, perhaps Category:Inuit and Eskimo peoples (although this seems to give the incorrect impression that the term "eskimo", if and when it is used, does not include Inuit people).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation by religion categories

I propose that this be expanded to cover religion as well. It seems to me that there has recently been a proliferation of Occupation by religion categories where the religion has little or no relevence. See my recent nomination of Actors by religion as an example of this. I see such categorization as mostly divisive. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that occupation by religion (or religion by occuaption) categories are not helpful. The purpose of vcategories is navigation, to help readers find related or similar articles. I can't see why folks would want to find Methodist actors or Baptist architects. Having categories that are too-specific makes it harder to find entries, not easier. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess you've never heard of Religious architecture or Category:Religious media.--T. Anthony 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be rewritten as "Gender, race, sexuality, and personal beliefs". Personal beliefs should be defined as "Religion, peolitical views, philosophy or opinions". This seems like an obvious extension of this policy, but since it was not part of the original discussion, this should be widely publicized at central, cfd, categorization, village pump, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, is that people may ascribe to a particular belief without it necessarily being an identity-defining issue. People will, for instance, never bother to leave the church of their childhood, so can be called "Catholics" even if they never practice, don't believe, etc. Whereas, gender, race, and sexuality are all pretty much universally significant identity markers to the individual. That's not to say that religious or political beliefs, disability, or any other kind of identity might not be an incredibly significant identity to one or many individuals; just that there will be people who fit into the identity category for whom it doesn't matter. (Of course, religion, like sexuality, race, nationality, gender, and a host of other attributes including height, weight, legitimacy, caste, skin color, class, disability, etc., can and do all have significant impacts on an individual's career & occupation & life.) --lquilter 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about these some more, it seems that "religious belief" is more akin to "political philosophy", ethical stance, strong beliefs of other sort, and so on: It may change over lifetime; and it can be the defining attribute to how a person views himself or how he is viewed by the world; but it is not necessarily a defining attribute -- it could be "in name only" or a casual belief, or an identity that appears to be taken by that person in defiance with everyone else's meaning of the word, or an identity that is taken by several different groups of people with different mutually exclusive meanings of the word. I'm thinking of: feminism, vegetarianism, anarchism, Christianity, Catholicism (Roman? denominational?), atheism, and so on. These are all states whose definition hinges to a significant extent on the individual's self-definition as well as to external referents. They seem different in kind than gender, ethnicity, and nationality, which are usually (not always) objectively determined. LGBT is a bit of a hybrid category, in more ways than one. --lquilter 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

I'd like to suggest that we replace the word "race" with "ethnicity" - in the page name, and in the content of the page. I presume the reasons are obvious? - jc37 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of heterosexual musicians

I understand how a writer who writes about "LGBT" themes can be classified as a gay/lesbian/bisexual author. But what about people who write normal literature but just happen to not be heterosexual? If I were to write a novel, it would totally not be LGBT literature even if I'm bi myself (See this userbox!) :p And I wouldn't categorize Wendy Carlos as a "transsexual musician" because her music isn't transsexual (what an absurd idea) and because she herself would rather nobody gave a shit. I understand there's a lot of "LGBT" people who seek validation by pointing out famous people who are yadda yadda but that isn't grounds for categorizing people in a totally insensitive way that makes no sense whatsoever. - ∅ (∅), 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A writer or musician who is LGBT exists in a particular cultural context regardless of what genre labels one would or wouldn't apply to their work, or who the intended audience is. A writer who is LGBT, for instance, doesn't have to write about LGBT-specific themes or restrict themselves to LGBT readers to qualify as a writer of gay literature; it simply isn't possible for the person's themes and cultural context to be entirely uninfluenced by their sexuality. Similarly, music doesn't have a sexual orientation in and of itself, but music by LGBT people does have a particular cultural context that applies regardless of whether their music specifically addresses LGBT lyrical themes or not. It's not what the work is about that makes it LGBT literature or LGBT music; it's the fact that it was created by an LGBT artist.

Here's a parallel example that might illustrate what I'm talking about: Dionne Brand's most recent novel focused on a Vietnamese Canadian family. But even though it wasn't about black characters, it's still Black Canadian literature, because as a black writer, Brand is coming from a black cultural context and a black thematic and literary perspective. No matter what she writes about, it's not possible for her work to be entirely divorced from the cultural influences that made her the type of writer she is. Bearcat 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the inside of a gay bar, and I don't intend to. Would my crappy writings qualify as "LGBT?" Because I haven't been exposed to "LGBT culture" in the least. Being black is different because if you are black, your parents are/were likely black too; whereas the parents who raised me are heterosexual and both of them still very much the sex they were born as. I have zero cultural influence from "the LGBT community," because it's not a community you get born into, you have to actively seek it, which I haven't and won't. See what I mean? - ∅ (∅), 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, no, I don't really see what you mean. More than anything else, the core experience that defines the LGBT identity is the experience of growing up as something of an "outsider" or "alien", precisely because of one's sexuality, within the culture that one was originally born into. Everything else in gay culture is a reaction to that basic formative experience, and not everybody reacts the same way to it. Some people throw themselves into institutionalized gay culture. Others (like me, for instance) find that not all of the conventional norms of gay culture really speak to who we are, and try with varying degrees of success to strike a balance between the multiple communities that we have to fit into. Still others shun the LGBT community completely, and twist themselves into knots trying to fit into their birth culture more successfully. And others reject the whole thing and define their primary identity around other subcultures altogether. But if you're a writer who is LGBT, no matter which of those approaches you take your writing couldn't possibly not be somehow influenced by the sense of having been an outsider in one's own birth culture. Thus, it would still exist within the corpus of LGBT literature, because whether you participate in the conventions of institutionalized gay culture or not, you still share the basic formative experience that defines the core of LGBT identity. Bearcat 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think that we should distinguish between Category:Writers of LGBT literature and Category:LGBT writers; the one treats a genre or thematic matter, and the other is a personal identity category. Not all LGBT writers write about LGBT issues; not all LGBT-themed literature is written by LGBT people. --lquilter 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gay literature != literature by LGBT writers

You know, the example on the front page of "gay literature" is a real category so "LGBT writers" is an okay intersection makes no sense. "Gay literature" is not all written by gay people (see, e.g., Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Catch Trap); and not all LGBT writers write "gay literature". We need to change the example, at least. --lquilter 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, right, see also the commenter above. I don't agree regarding the usefulness of the categories, but I do agree that if they are used to represent only those instances where the intersection is somehow particularly notable to that person, then that's not a very helpful guideline. --lquilter 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality by inference?

We've had a little disagreement at Billie Piper over whether she should be included in Category:Bisexual English actors or not. She's never used the word "bisexual" in describing herself, and her known relationship history is exclusively with males; however, she once told an interviewer "I fancy women big time... I check them out more than I check men out. Maybe I would want to sleep with a woman." Does this justify identifying her as bisexual?

I know that sexuality consists of sexual behavior, sexual orientation and sexual identity. As far as I can tell, this statement by Piper classifies her as bisexual by orientation, but she hasn't shown any evidence of bisexual behavior or identity (i.e., she's never dated a woman or identified herself using the term "bisexual"). Is there a guideline or precedent for ambiguous cases like this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Second-guessing people's sexuality could get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble. Unless she flat-out states it, we should use it as a categorization method. --Hemlock Martinis 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)