Talk:LGBT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Most common or standard

I thought GLBT was the standard order of the letters. It's the one I usually see. To be honest, I've never seen LGBT outside of Wikipedia. -Branddobbe 17:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's all in the eye of the author, really. GLBT is definitely the most popular but I've seen pretty much every permutation of the letters that can be built (including F, for friendly, A, for "allied", and/or Q, for questioning (or queer)). It makes a rather interesting alphabet soup. --Chirstyn 17:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to claim that one order is the majority and another is not, but I'll list myself here as somebody that's more familiar with the "LGBT" ordering in RL. To be sure, I've seen both. (For the sake of the following debate, let me also note that I've come to queer culture in the past 5 years or less, and almost entirely in the USA.) -- Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought that GLBT made more sense. The word "gay" is the most significant because in its broader sense it includes lesbians. Lesbian is more specific, because it refers only to gay females. Bisexual comes after gay/lesbian because it is the gay/lesbian part of a bisexual person's sexuality that makes them distinct from the majority of society and part of the group that the acronym intends to capture. Transgender comes last because it is the least common by incidence and because it's a slightly different group.
Actually last time I spent time in circles where such acronyms were prevalent the it had become: GLBTIQ. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning. No wonder people are looking for generic terms like "queer" and "rainbow" Ben Arnold 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've seen both in real life, but am generally more familiar with LGBT. I think some people prefer LGBT because it doesn't give the men (G) primacy over everyone else, but I couldn't swear to that. The magazine Anything That Moves coined the acronym FABGLITTER (Fetish, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution), which I love but don't think we can actually use on Wikipedia. Bearcat 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
In a class I took at school about GLBT Social Movements our professor told us that certain areas of the country (United States - I don't know about other countries) use GLBT and in other regions LGBT is more common. Of course I can't remember which regions she said used what, and I can't find those notes, but that's just what I remember. --David 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think that LGBT might be used mainly because it seems to flow better when you say it than GLBT. Also, i think to order the letters in the order of numbers of members of each of the groups is narrow-minded. Because there are more lesbians than bisexuals mean they get to come first? I don't think that that should be the way to decide, but if that is the order that everyone understands, and has no mal-intent behind it then i think it works fine Davepealing 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US vs others?

Google says

  • GLBT 621,000
  • LGBT 495,000

In .uk, LGBT is far more common

  • LGBT 18,900
  • GLBT 4,270

other results

  • GLBT: .us
  • LGBT: .au .ca
  • even: .nz

So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing.

Morwen - Talk 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I ran this search today on Google and found:
  • LGBT 1,710,000
  • GLBT 1,290,000
Yahoo! is showing:
  • LGBT 2,450,000
  • GLBT 1,520,000
tdempsey 08:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that LGBT is a stock symbol, here's today:

[edit] Old vs new?

Lets look at it another way besides most and least common. I would argue the GL(B) is an older configuration and that more people and organizations are moving towards LGBT. Here's my approximate timeline:

  1. Gay and lesbian
  2. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual
  3. GLB
  4. LGB
  5. LGBT
  6. etc

Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual minority

It seems the article name must be "neutral".
Since only one name may be used, it can only have one form, and thus a representative form must be chosen. I argue LGBT is most representative of the acronyms.
We could find POVs which insist on a more thourough discernment of terms than "LGBTI" (such as "LGBTIQQA"), but the longer the acronym the less representative because of the greater possibility of variance ("LGBTQQIA", for example) and the lesser frequency of its use.
Thus I propose the article be moved to sexual minorities, as this article would include who is included as a sexual minority according to different POVs and thus a natural and ready place for the acronym discussion. Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that a sexual minorities page be developed that links to this one. They are inherently different terms. I've been out for 4 years and I don't know of any LGBT person that would identify as a sexual minority (even if it is accurate). Also, I don't know anyone who would look for information about LGBT people under that term. Alison9 03:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, LGB people are occasionally characterised as a "sexual minority" but whether some do so themselves, I don't know. Can't recall such a use, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Transgender, transsexual and intersex people and also certainly allies don't really fit under that umbrella, though. Also, this article explains what LGBT(?) is, not "sexual minoriy". Also, BDSM people for example are often labeled "sexual minority", which is an entirely different matter. -- AlexR 05:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Groups that challenge traditional gender structure - Revert - "sexual minorities" instead of "lgbti" is so wrong, it's insulting!)" AlexR, edit summary
Sexual minority means sexual in the full sense, sexuality and gender. Rather than being a term frequently used for self-identification, it has the advantage of being a description. Hyacinth 05:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And what was the point in copying the edit summary here? There is a reason, you know, I wrote it in the edit summary (of another article into the bargain) and not a comment. Anyway, very many both transsexual and intersex people already see a problem with these words because the "sex" part leads to so many misunderstandings, namely, that the "sex" is usually understood to be "the action" rather than "the equiptment". (And that's the second use of "sex", not gender!) "Transgender" was so widely addopted also the very same reason. And that very same misunderstanding leads to a lot of discrimination against T&I people already. So I really do not see the advantage of using a term that is seen as insulting by many and used as an insult by many. Apart from that, even if it were not insulting, it would confuse sex and gender, and these are two very different things, and a term that confuses them again is hardly a description.
I do assume, from your previous edits, that you are in good faith trying to find a solution to a problem (although I don't know what the problem is supposed to be), but really, this is not a good idea at all. The WP does not have to use self-descriptions, but there is certainly no reason to use terms that are inaccurate, understood to be insulting and used as insults, and which do not exactly promote understanding of the matter instead. -- AlexR 11:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please cite sources stating that "sexual minority" is "insulting", "inaccurate", or "used as an insult" as per Wikipedia:NPOV, your own admission of ignorance, and against the following examples:
  • Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL): "the only youth service agency solely dedicated to meeting the needs of youth ages 13-21 in the metropolitan Washington, DC area who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, as well as those questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity."
  • Jacksonville Area Sexual Minority Youth Network (JASMYN): "a youth services and advocacy organization that focuses specifically on youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or uncertain about their sexual orientation (or youth who become labeled as such because of their behavior or situations."
  • Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth: "Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth (ROSMY) is a non-profit agency that provides support services for Richmond area gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth 20 years of age and younger."
  • Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities (SCSM) "The Commission's role is to effectively address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments."
Hyacinth 22:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, but first, these groups appear to be your classical LGB groups who started adding a T only later, and keeping the "sexual minority" thing. (Many of those additions, it turned out, were purely cosmetical anyway, it is just at the moment something everybody does.) Second, why the aggressive tone? Until now your edits were neither aggressive nor so ... odd. I am rather surprised by your behaviour right now! And third, I admitted ignorance as to whether LGB people actually used it, not about the fact that I have never met a trans-person who did not feel that the lable was simply not applicable, to say the least. I also explained why it is used as an insult, because the label fires up the not exactly uncommon prejudice that trans* is somehow related to sexual preferences, or even that it is itself a sexual preference, which it is clearly not. Also, your statement that the "sexual" means both sex (the action) and gender is a triffle strange, there is a reason, you know, that people started using "gender", which was not used in the current sense until a few decades ago.
I also do not feel that right now there is any use in further debate, not when you behave like that. I do sincerely hope, though, that it is just a temporary problem. -- AlexR 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, "sexual minority" seems to be used after the inclusion of transgender and/or intersex people and issues in a group, such as SCSM, which "was formerly known as the Seattle Commission for Lesbians and Gays," but now, "address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle," and is named Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities.
Well, not being American I don't know, but either online or offline (thereby including US resitents) I have never met a transgender person nor an intersex one who does feel covered by "sexual minority" and most regard it as potentially insulting, and at best inaccurate. (Unless the happen to be also part of a sexual minority, like gay and lesbian trans- or intersex people. [AR]
"LGBT" is certainly offensive, probably insuling to some, such as intersex people or allies who feel intersex people are not transgendered and thus excluded, or people who feel transgendered people shouldn't be include, or people who hate acronyms. Simply because there are people who feel in similar ways about "sexual minority" does not then exclude its use, as it does not exclude the use of "LGBT".
LGBT is certainly not uncontroversial, but this article does nothing but explain what the acronym stands for. In fact, there are trans people who don't like the term because they don't want to have anything to do with LGB people, there are LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons, there are intersex people who want it to be LGBTI for obvious reasons (and LGBTI is included in the article, it is just rarer than LGBT, and now LGBTI redirects to LGBT), there are people (intersex and non-intersex) who argue that intersex alone is no reason to throw people in with LGBT people, there are intersex people who feel that the connection is offending, and I think that sentence became long enough. It is certainly expandable. [AR]
If you claim both that the term is rare and that you are ignorant of its possible use, I urge to to find out about it. I have provided examples of its use as self-identification and its use inclusive of transgender and intersex.
Yes, and I did not stop by to make a count of trans- and intersex people who find the term offensive or at the very least inaccurate, but until now my experience has been 100%. (And it was debated in various context with quite a few people, too.) [AR]
I do not find it "odd" or "a triffle strange" to assert the common knowledge and specific example that "sexual" is used to mean sexuality/intercourse/romance and gender/sex.
I do, because I know you are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, even if still many people are not. And frankly, I am also certain that you are aware that references about sex (the equiptment) are rather often confused with sex (the action). If now a term would attempt to throw these matters (sex, sex and gender) into one term, by using the one that practically causes the most problems to trans- and also sometimes intersex people - well, it would not be a good idea. [AR]
This debate does seem to be at a standstill. However, since this issue will continue to come up as long as people propose or insist upon the inclusion or exclusion of letters, groups, or terms (in and outside of wikipedia), a "sexual minority" article will eventually be written, and for both this, that, and future article I suggest that you find sources to represent your assertions.
I already have them, but if you need to check them, try mentioning in any trans or intersex group that you consider them a "sexual minority". I think that would very much clarify the matter for you. In some groups, I recomment taking a body guard with you, though. [AR]
Given that this article appears to need its own page for interarticle clarification purposes, given your objections, and the standstill, I withdraw my proposal to redirect this page. Hyacinth 00:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. But when you start writing Sexual minorites do make sure it is NPOV and mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage. -- AlexR 04:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would seem then that this article should also "mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage," and not do "nothing but explain what the acronym stands for." Hyacinth 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hm, but the article already does that. Not that it cannot be improved (which article can), but that is there already (and was, in a short from, before your edit, too). -- AlexR 13:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There a may be a problem of inclusion accuracy with the term too: consider a post-transition heterosexual transperson; their inclusion in being a "sexual minority" depends strongly on what one defines a "sexual minority" to be. If one takes sexual to describe sex, then that person is not part of a sexual minority. If one takes sexual to describe physiology, then that person may not be considered part of a sexual minority, but intersexed people would be. If one uses the former definition of the act to determine sexual minority, then the inclusion of trans* and intersexed people of whatever operative becomes problematic for reasons already outlined by Alex above. Dysprosia 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender or Transgendered?

This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There's some debate over that, but as far as I can see, transgender was originaly coined as both noun and adjective, same as with transsexual. (Ever heard "transsexualed"? Me neither.) Transgendered has become more common only in the past few years, and is still behind on Google count. I personally can't stand it ;-) AlexR 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if a person can be "intersexed" (and that is grammatically correct) then why not "transgendered"? Granted, it was originally "transgender" for both, but language changes. BTW, the term was first invented in a support group in Minneapolis in the mid-1970s -- I was there. Unfortunately, I know of no printed published text that says this -- but I wanted you all to know that bit of history :) We began using it in a newsletter, and it spread from there. (Annoymous transgendered person who added to the history paragraph April 24, 2006)

GLAAD says in its media guide 'The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word.' and I agree. I researched this and asked around years ago and found "transgender" to be the correct spelling. tdempsey 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexual is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a transsexual person. Gender is a noun (see Merriam-Webster, therefore a person should be a transgendered person. Adding -ed gives us an adjective. If the common usage in the US is to drop the -ed, it wouldn't surprise me. It's kind of like iced tea becoming ice tea in the US. If it's wrong grammatically (and I may be mistaken here, feel free to challenge my logic), should we just go with the common (US) usage? The UK has, I believe, a sizeable T community. What is the common usage there? Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I tend to find it easier to side step the exact definition and just leave it as Trans

[edit] Eli Manning

I've removed the reference to Eli Manning in the list of famous LGBT people for lack of proof (wishful thinking, someone?). Feel free to put it back if you can provide some sort of documentation. Pinball22 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more detail

I feel that this article is an excellent one-stop-shop for people who are looking for a quick link from articles about the LGBTI community. As such, I'd like to expand this article with detailed sections on each sub-community with references to the definitive articles. This is in keeping with Wikipedia style for articles that have grown the other way (where a section is removed into another article, and summarized in the original), and I'll try not to stray from that mode.

This all came up while editing Heteronormativity, where an editor there thought that LGBTI was not a good link, and needed to be expanded to individual links for several reasons, the most important being that coverage of transgender and intersex topics was mostly limited to simple links in this page.

I think they were right, and I'm just trying to make sure that that's not limiting any other edits on Wikipedia from now on. Please comment, thanks! -Harmil 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This change has now been made, but I'm still open to comment, of course. See the changes at [1] -Harmil 19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to my work listed above:

  • Why is the word "homosexual" not acceptable? We've linked to the discussion about the topic above, and it seems to make the point. "sexual orientation toward"? I'm not sure that works in English ("sexual orientation" isn't the same as "navigational orientation"... I don't think there's a directionality in that sense, just a set of criteria).
  • There was a phrase removed about intersex being a recent term. Is it not a recent term, or was that removed for some other reason?
    • Not quite so recent; and the information was quite unnecessary, too, since we have far too many annoying people who whine that new "PC" words replave the good old ones. OED says first use of intersexual dates back to 1866, and obviously, by 1910-15 it became quite widely used. Not all that recent, I'd say. [AR]

In general I would like to discuss the language that I used, and understand where and why it is insufficient so that I can adapt it as needed. I'm of the opinion that this article should see a lot more link traffic, but that puts it in the delicate spot of needing to be worded not just for those of us who are immersed in the culture, but for those who haven't. If changes are made without discussion, I have almost no hope of understanding their goal, and thus preserving their meaning over the long haul. -Harmil 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Remember, though, that many people will understand a link to this article as a sign that it is some sort of unified community, which might be inappropriate in a given situation. Not only does by no means every LGBTI* person feel part of that community (and some are quite offended if one assumes they are), the issues can also be quite different - as they are when it comes to discussing heteronormativity, for example. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't personally find the word homosexual offensive but if some consider it so it's best if we can rephrase around the word. I changed the change to "sexual orientation towards" and I think it it does make sense in english, if you have a look at the sexual orientation article it uses the same language - another example is from cardiff university which also uses similar language. On the other hand, if you can improve it, go for it! :P -- Joolz 02:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] physically ambiguous genitalia or biological sex

I changed that because it is a rather odd way of phrasing the matter. Not only are both terms pleonasms (since genitals are always phyisical, and sex usually understood to be "biological", too), sex also covers genitals. In other words, a completely pointless repetition. Also, the "or" might confuse readers. It's simply "ambiguous or mismatching sexual characteristics", and one can throw in a "physically" to make that one absolutely clear, but that is already pushing the amount of clarification that makes sense. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but it's not as redundant as you're suggesting. For example, biological sex covers hormonal differneces that are only indirectly related to genitalia while genitalia would cover many conditions which are often addressed surgically at birth (and are a hot topic in the intersex world), but have nothing to do with the functional sex of the person (e.g. an over-sized clitoris). I'll agree that a re-wording is needed, but we need to address the spectrum of intersex conditions (and making sure that the change is gramatically correct and has working links would be good).
I see that your current edit uses the term "sexual characteristics". Two problems: 1) the page that links to is practically a stub and 2) that term does not cover hormonal differences. Thsus, you've removed an entire class of intersex person.... -Harmil 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, what makes you think that hormone levels are not a sexual characteristic? Of course they are, I eliminated nobody whomever. Also, yes, sexual characteristics is a stub which I only wrote this morning - because, much to my surprise, we really didn't have this article - we only had sex organs (which are often calles primary sexual characteristics) and secondary sexual characteristics but not a page that explained what plain sexual characteristics are.
As for sex - yes, well, sex also covers those genitalia, so what is the point of mentioning them again - and BTW, I am fully aware of the problems of surgical interventions done to intersex children.
And kindly be a bit less patronizing - it is not exactly as if I was clueless about these matters, and I certainly would not be caught making such rather surprising statements that people somehow can go from intersex to transgender (or vice versa) via surgery. Some intersex people - often, but not always because of a false sex assignment - fit the definition of transgender as well, but that does not mean they are first one and then the other, it means they are both, according to the definition; although many do self-identify only as intersex, while some primarily or exclusively self-identify as transgender. I am glad to explain things to you, but it would really improve the way we work together if you asked any questions before making questionable edits. -- AlexR 14:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hormones are not classically considered a sex characteristic, so much as a sex-linked system. If you feel that's not right, I'd gladly bow to an authoritative citation...
  • Uh, excuse me, but when did hormones get removed from the list? You might want to check the article on sex - which is determined, in humans, by chromosomes, gonads, hormone levels and sex organs. Now, if they got thrown out of that system recently, you might have to be the one who cites evidence for that. [AR]
Remember asking me to avoid being patronizing? Well, I sort of feel like the above, falls square into that category, and is not in the spirit of one editor speaking to another as a peer. I am making every attempt to discuss this with you rationally, but between the above comments and your characterizations of my comments as "stupid", "pointless" and various other comments, I don't feel that you're approaching any of this with an eye to productive discourse, so much as a personal game of one-upsmanship. That makes it very hard to communicate.
That said, let me try to respond. Hormones are a sex-linked system. They are a part of the biological sex of the individual, but they are not, strictly speaking either primary or secondary sexual characteristics. If you consider that a "pointless" distinction, then apparently you and I have been reading different biology texts. -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confusing sex, the biological term with sex the interpersonal term. Biological sex has is the reason for having a clitoris, but if you said someone had an ambiguous bioligical sex, that would not include something like an oversized clitoris (since that does not modify the functional sex of the organism, human in this case).
  • Really, you should get a clue here - this is becoming ridiculous. The faq on the ISNA site would be a great help to you, as would be the relevant wikipedia articles. And yes, a clitoris that is considered "too large" is usually considered an intersex condition, especially since a clitoris grows larger than usual through unusual levels of testosterone in females, which is definitely an intersex condition. And how exactly am I confusing sex (the action) with sex (the equiptment) here? I really don't think I do that. [AR]
Once again, you are being insulting and using non-logic (insults) in your discourse, here. This is not helpful. The FAQ at the ISNA site is not a medical document. It also contains phrases such as "we at ISNA [classify as intersex] anyone born with what someone believes to be non-standard sexual anatomy." Vague definitions like this are simply not useful. We need to include both sex characteristics and other sex-linked biological functions, and I think we're done. Do you disagree with that statement? -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As for being patronizing, I'm not. That is, I am making not attempt to be, so you can read my comments that way if you wish, or discuss these matters in the technical / medical light in which I am attempting to set them (in order to avoid putting any of my own POV bias into this article while improving it). I asked you into this discussion because I respect your input, and I still do. I am pleased to be able to bounce this terminology off of someone who obviously has some background in the matter. However, instead of joining in the conversation, you just replaced my comments. It's hardly surprising that I then wanted to discuss your edits. -Harmil 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not replaced any comments; the only thing I may have replaced are edits to the article -- which is something you will have to live with when you work on Wikipedia. It happens all the time, so what exactly are you complaining about?
    As for you attempting to discuss these matters in a technical/medical light, well, sorry, but I have to say that this means you have to get some technical/medical facts first. There seems to be a certain lack of them in your comments and edits. -- AlexR 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I had assumed I was being clear. Apparently this was not so. By "comments" I meant, "the text which you replaced, which we have been discussing here for several rounds of exchange now." I suppose I'll have to be more pedantic in my phrasing of these things in the future. -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the above discussion, it becomes obvious to me that even someome who has been exposed to the GLBTI community can be quite unclear on topics such as primary sexual characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and the sex hormones. This means that a casual reader is going to need more than a simple link to a stub to sort out the difference. I will attempt to expand on the language in order to further explain without turning this into a copy of the cited pages... a tightrope walk at best.... -Harmil 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, so your last edit makes it completely obvious that you are unwilling to let any edit stand that is not exactly as you want it to be, no matter how stupid the edit is. What exactly was the point of that? This article here cannot replace the respective articles it links to, nor should it. And your insitence that everything has to be your way or the highway, while at the same time you are showing a very deplorable willingness to even get a clue about the matters you insist on writing about makes me really wonder what the point is in talking to you at all. Needless to say, your latest edit is reverted, and for any further comment on the hormones matter I am waiting for a comment I asked an MD to make. Unlike you, I don't insist I know everything better. -- AlexR 15:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I had abandoned my prefered phrasing and gone with yours (expanded into the two classifications of sex characteristics, as they are more complete articles), and added one additional category, which you agree is part of the definition, but felt was implied. Other than as a point of pride, why do you object to the reference to sex hormones? -Harmil 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The dichotomy you are discussing here has its roots in the historical intolerance of science and medicine for 'true hermaphrodites.' While nature loves diversity, society hates it – especially medical society. Since the dawn of 'modern' medicine, we've been trying to prove that everyone belongs in one 'true' biological sex. Though this is not because that is a scientific or logical imperative, but because the idea that there might not be two 'true' or 'biological' sexes to which every individual can be neatly assigned really messes with your head unless you are both a scientist and pretty well versed in the trans or intersex community (and the memes of those communities.)
Its really a matter that science has refused to, up until very recently, think 'outside the box' of a binary gender system (at least with regards to humans. Its ok for some fish to have five genders, but not us!) However, the more we look at it, the more that sex seems to be less a categorical variable and more of a spectrum.
That said, from a biological standpoint male means: 'makes small gametes', and female means 'makes large gametes'. That it. Very unexciting.
However, thats not exactly what you were talking about. What you were discussing was what are the characteristics by which we try to assign people 'from a scientific standpoint' into one of two sexes. While the biological meaning is above, there are seven characteristics that I've seen noted several times as the ones which can be used to sort individuals: gonads, external genitalia, hormonal milieu, secondary sexual characteristics, gender identity, gender role, and chromosomes. Perhaps most importantly to the specific question at hand is are these seven characteristics independent variables?
The answer is yes, which is why they are the ones listed. That is, in particular, hormonal milieu, while usually predicting secondary sex characteristics, does not always. This is why its an independent variable that should be looked at when you are trying to determine from a 'biological perspective' where an organism is on the spectrum of sex. The prototypical example of this is CAIS. The individual with CAIS has XY chromosomes, a hormonal milieu that is decidedly masculine (producing testosterone from male gonads) but because of a defect in the testosterone receptor has female secondary sex characteristics (and external genitalia.)
Though FWIW, I think describing someone's biological sex is right up there with check boxes for race. Its something that is less a categorical variable than people would like to believe. Its something that most people think can be easily determined. And its something that causes people who are 'in-between' the categorical variables no end of grief.
If you want a source for those seven variables, the two best I can suggest are “Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex” by Alice Dreger and “Evolutions Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People” by Joan Roughgarden. NickGorton 05:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

Is anyone up for cleaning the LGBT category? It needs major work and I am interested in starting now.

tdempsey 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops - I have found the projects and discussions including Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. tdempsey 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GLBTQQIA merge notice

The Wikipedia:LGBT notice board has already discussed this on numerous occasions. Wikipedia does not do separate articles for each possible permutation of the queer community's group acronym; we have one article at LGBT, and all alternative orders of the letters redirect to that. If you don't like it, you can always propose that we move LGBT to a more inclusive title, but there will still only be one article, with all other acronyms redirecting to that one. The LGBT article does already discuss the use of extended acronyms and the variable order of the letters. Bearcat 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] relationship to other groups

This article as it currently stands could use some more on the current and historical relationships with other groups that cover similar, or overlapping ground. For example, the interests of lesbian feminism clearly overlap at least in part with those of the LGBT movement, and in some cases people simultaneously identify with both, but there is a complex and often controversial relationship there. In addition, queer theory is sometimes taken to be an important theoretical underpinning, but that's also controversial. (I'm not adding anything myself because I only know of the relationships; I don't know much detail about them.) --Delirium 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Anti-LGBT community LGBT people

Even though they have been greatly improved, the last two paragraphs in the 'Controversy' section of the LGBT article are no longer entirely neutral. They give the impression that all people who are against a distinctive LGBT community are against equal rights under the law and social acceptance for LGBT people, which is simply not true. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to make this section more neutral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.214.17.198 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

While I would admit that in their current form those 2 paragraphs don't paint the Anti-LGBTs in the same light as LGBTs, I think that is rather the purpose of the descriptions, so that doesn't really stray outside of NPOV.
As far as I understand the term, "Anti-LGBTs" are those L,G,B, and T people who are 'actively positioned aginst the existence of the LGB/T community', and mustn't be confused with those L,G,B, and T people who merely rarely/never interact with the community, but are ambivalent or positive about it's existence. And in at least the UK, Anti-LGBTs do genuinely in the majority believe in social darwinism and consider liberation and equality of social minorities is pointless or an interferance in 'the natural order of things'.
Maybe it could do with some clarification and caveats to circumvent misreading. Myfanwy 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think those are the only possible positions. There are also anti-LGBTs who object to lumping L, G, B, and Ts together into one coherent group (for example, some of the lesbian feminists mentioned above). --Delirium 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical scope

This article seems to apply mainly to North America, and to a much lesser extent some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. Can anyone expand it with a more global view? Da Masta 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Opening sentence

Sorry to be petty, but I think the article begins with a rather badly worded sentence: "LGBT (or GLBT, or Rainbow people) is an initialism used as a collective term to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people."

Firstly, it implies that "Rainbow People" is an initialism, which it clearly isn't. So, that's either got to be re-worded, or the "rainbow people" reference removed... I personally have never heard the term before, but if it is common, I'm cool with it staying in a better worded sentence. Secondly, should the T stand for "trans" or "transgender"? Both of them are umbrella terms, but most trans people I've met prefer trans... ok so that's not a very representative sample, but still. I know the National Union of Students (UK) LGBT campaign, and most UK student LGBT groups prefer trans. What's the case elsewhere? Saluton 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I for one definitely prefer "LGBT". As well as being far more common in the UK than "GLBT", it flows off the tongue better and doesn't give the impression of being in order of how marginalised they are. Saluton 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of the way I've modified it. (Feel free to make further changes.) -Aleta 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try at changing it, however, it does feel a little bit tacked on now. Would anyone object if we removed the term altogether? I too have never heard of it before (frankly I can think of few things worse than being called a "rainbow person") and there are also many other terms refering to LGBTs and none fo these are mentioned (nor arguably should they be in the introduction to the article). I'll leave it for a few days in case anyone holds the term dear and then remove it and wait to see if I'm struck down by lightning. Intesvensk
I've never heard of it outside this article either, but then I was allowing for the possibility that it is commonly used in another anglophone country, but just not in the UK. I guess that it should be fine to remove unless someone can come up with proof in the next few days of said use. --Myfanwy 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
OK - trying to find some reference for "rainbow people" (I, too, have never heard the term elsewhere) - I found this LGBT-in-anime page which defines nijijin as "literally 'rainbow person'; refers to people who gather under the rainbow gay pride flag". I don't know yet if that's the main context of the term. If I find anything else useful, I'll post it here. If this is it, though, we should drop the mention of the term. -Aleta 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey. Thanks for trying to find out about this. I agree though, it is looking like this is something that should be nowhere near the introduction of the article. I mean, in Sweden gay people are sometimes referred to as tvecksam handleder (lit. doubtful wrists) but it is a vaguely interesting side note to the topic at best. Lets give it another day and delete if we don't find anything more. Intesvensk
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/g/b/Talk%7ELGBT_4069.html"