Talk:LGBT social movements/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Uncomfortable with the term "gay rights"

The term "gay rights," despite its usage by both mainstream and glbt community media, is inherently discriminatory. It implies that gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are asking for rights not already available to non-homosexuals when, in reality, what is really sought is simply equal protection under the law, the same sort of protection afforded by the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and religion. If we're going to continue to call it "gay rights" I suggest that the encyclopedia entries on the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. be edited to refer to "black rights." After all, African Americans were only seeking equal protection and services. See if gay people want to get married they should be allowed to. If some people dont like it they dont have to do anything about it. the fact that they love each other then thye have a right to get married. Forget those who dont like it because we did not ask them for there oppion now did we.

That's a good point. I would prefer "equal rights", though I know there are some users who would have a problem with that. Still, I'm all for giving it a go. Also, when you make contributions to talk pages, please follow them with -~~~~ so we all know who wrote it. Thanks! -Seth Mahoney 02:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the person who wrote the comment above, but I also dislike the term gay rights. I'm afraid to say that because I fear the reaction will be to label me a homophobe and send me to Room 101. But here goes. No one is entitled to rights by virtue of being gay, straight, male, female, or membership in any segment of society. We have rights as individuals. I'd edit this article to reflect that, but I'd rather just deal with rather than start strife. I think mine is a valid concern though, so I have put it here. Rob 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how much this will put your mind at ease, but I think the idea behind "gay rights" isn't that gay people deserve special rights but that gay people are a group who have been singled out as not deserving the rights that everyone else has by default, and these rights therefore need to be fought for. "Gay rights", then, as pointed out above, is the same thing as "equal rights" or "human rights". I do agree with you, at least as far as that the article needs to reflect that gay rights is about this concern, and not about getting rights by virtue of being gay (as well as showing dissenting views, within and outside of the gay community, to that view). -Seth Mahoney 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that "gay rights" is an appropriate title, as the intro paragraph clearly states that the LGBT movement's goal is "social acceptance". Ther are many things that one has a "right" to do that are not socially acceptable. I am not claiming that the goals of the LGBT movement are noble - that is a different discussion, and of a completely different nature. But "striving for social acceptance" and "fighting to protect a right" are different. Calling the LGBT movement a "right" carries with it a bias, as it makes the assumption that, first, there is a specific right that only LGBT people are denied and that, second, the LGBT movement is ONLY concerned with fighting to protect rights, and this is not true. The movement is seeking social acceptance. 207.118.45.213 06:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the title "LGBT Equality" would be much, much more accurate than "Gay Rights." When someone says "gay rights," it makes one think that the phrase reflects homosexual male rights to the exclusion of all others. Clearly, this is not what the article is about. I can also understand the confusion this title creates between rights and equality. Grendel 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion reflects a sea change which has taken place within the GLBT community over the years. I can remember in the early 1990's how the focus was not on equality. Gay pride events, gay neighborhoods, the slogans we used, all of it seemed to shou, "We're different from you, you'll just have to deal with that." A perfect example was Queer Nation's slogan: We're here, we're queer, get used to it. It seemed as though most most were perfectly content being a seperate social group from all the others, and the distinction was emphasized more than any similarities.

Now, the opposite is true. Gay men are being ordained as mainstream protestant bishops, marriage is legal now in a few countries and even one of the states, employers are offering benefits to unmarried partners, gay couples now adopt kids regularly, and there's even a few gay politicians out there on the federal level. The focus here is on our becoming just like everyone else. The GLBT movement has gone from the spicy hot pepper to something more like oatmeal with strawberries. Hey, don't knock it, oatmeal's good for ya.

It's remarkable to see how much we've changed. Maybe it's because we've matured as a culture. maybe back then we were the societal equivalent of a wild and crazy college kid, and now we're more like the mellowed and focused family-oriented person. This is reflected in the fact that we no longer call it gay rights, favouring equal rights. Kinda cool, eh? Wandering Star 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that you should be throwing around "we" so often. I may personally identify as gay, though this does not mean that I have any desire (or obligation) to be part of this "culture" you speak of. Maybe I just want to be recognized as simply another human on the face of this planet, rather than having my sexual orientation emphasized as some kind of oppressive diversity when it doesn't have to be. I understand that you were only trying to be positive in your response, so forgive me for being objective. I mean nothing personal by it. Grendel 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I ought to show your comment to my roommate. She's gay and has said as much to me in the past. I can't remember her exact words, but she pointed out that no one sees being hetero as the first thing you mention or note about someone who is hetero, so it's not proper to act like being gay is the first or most important thing about a gay person. It amazes me that people can get so worked up - on both sides - over what is really such an unimportant difference. What can it matter what someone else is doing in their bedroom? Cheers, Kasreyn 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What can it matter whether someone is a man or woman? Black or white? Working class or middle class? Deaf or hearing? These are all social identities that some people hold dear, especially those who are on the stigmatised side of these dichotomies. While there are always some who, like Grendel above, prefer not to be a part of such group identities, these social disctinctions clearly do not represent "unimportant differences" to many. ntennis 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose. I just find it weird that hetero people never think twice about being hetero, or use it to define themselves or their lives, but they (and some gay people) see gay-ness as the defining aspect, the key descriptive factor, of a gay person. You hear it all the time: "Samantha - you know, my gay friend..." You never hear "Rick - you know, my straight friend..." It seems sort of disrespectful to me. I suppose it can be very important to some, but it seems to me that what you do with your life, who you love, what you know, what you contribute to the world - these are more important things about who a person is. By "unimportant", I only mean that the worth of a person's character has nothing to do with factors beyond their control, such as race or sexual orientation. To me, people are people and it really isn't important what their skin color is or who they're attracted to. Best wishes, Kasreyn 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, there is one thing that hasn't changed in the time I've been out of the closet. It's the way gay people seem to enjoy hating the gay community. Maybe that's because mainsteam culture reinforces the idea that baing gay is bad, and being a memeber of the GLBT community is much worse. I suppose hearing the message over and over again ("That's so gay!", "Faggot", etc) is kinda like what BF Skinner talked about when he discussed behaviour modification. The behaviour being modified isn't our sexual activity, or the attractions we feel-that's born into us, so there's no real way to remove it- it's more the behaviour associated with identifying with something.

Why participate in the GLBT community? Why use the word "we"? Why even acknowledge that "we" have a culture at all, or that our culture is something positive?

I ask myself those questions everytime I get burned by another GLBT person. Relationships gone sour, friends that seem to thrive on gossip, people who save all that hatred that's been poured on them by mainstream society just so they can spend it all by attacking the people within the GLBT community they don't like. Twinks that hate older men, leather/BDSM guys that despise effeminate guys, bitchy queens that will tear anyone apart that even looks at them cross-eyed. Skittish lesbians that save all their disgust for the way men in general treat them until they see a skinny little queen that has no interest in sleeping with or marginalizing them to deride. And that's not even mentioning the way everyone treats the trannies.

Yeah, I can understand why the infighting would drive people away from our community. But at the same time, there's one little fact that makes it all worthwhile. Most non-GLBT folks, while they don't hate us, don't really even pay much attention to our problems. That's normal, of course. Most folks concentrate on what's directly relevant to their lives. Thus, they can't really do anything to help us when we're in trouble. That's why, even though the majority of people in places like Colorado and Texas really couldn't care less if we married or not, no-one really stands in the way when the few who really do hate us decide to attack.

So, the only people that can help us with our problems when we have problems that are specific to being GLBT is ourselves. Thus, we need each other, even when we can't stand each other. That's why "we" throw the word "family" around so much. "We" are a big, dysfunctional family. And you can be ashamed of your family, and maybe you didn't get to pick your family. Your family is the only thing you've got left when everything else is taken from you or lost. So, hate them if you must, but don't be so quick to cut all your ties to us. You may just discover how big and fierce and cruel the world can be when you're all on your own.Wandering Star 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's also important to highlight the fact that Talk pages are for discussing article content. Talk pages are not public forums. Dysprosia 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Highly agreed, but back to the main point here of the term "gay rights". Being a homosexual male who has lived as a "straight" male for all of my life, I have some experience and discussion points on this topic. I have "straight-acted" in my city because of the rampant homosexual bashings and killings. all in all, I am a person who is against gay marriage and the so called term "gay rights". It is all a bunch of hulla-ba-loo to me for, being homosexual is a completely different thing than being of another race or religion. I do not discern the fact that the "Gays" are going through the same kind of oppression as the blacks during the civil rights movement or certain religions that were also persecuted against somewhat violently. But, the sexual orientation of a person is merely a mind set, a sexual ideology where that person favors the same sex as their own, for what ever reason that may be, way. Point being that it is a mental capacity and not a physical difference. I really think that the "gay" community should stop what they are doing and merely go along with the former U.S. military's policy on homosexuals; "Don't ask, don't tell." I just ask that the movement be put out and that the "gays" should live as they normally do and keep their sexual thoughts to themselves. I think it is outrageous that there are pride parades where homosexuals parade the streets acting in very suggestive manners and merely worsening the image they have on the world. You don't see your fellow heterosexual male at work or in the street rubbing themselves against another person a lot do you? No, of course not. If this movement were stopped there woudl be less problems, less violence, and less worry. Again, I don't put away the fact that there are extremist homophobic people out there who like to kill those they hate. But that is no different from the Ku Klux Klan, Islamic Extremists, or Christian Evangelicals. Leading back to "gay rights", homosexuals don't need special rights, all we need is an assurance that what we do at home is our own privacy, and that what you do at home is your own privacy. Of course, this doesn't discourage the playful immature talk people have about sex, or otherwise mature talk, but it would suppress the anger or discontent. 75.72.138.243 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) -Shalashaska

Queer or LGBT Portal

Rather than having a Gay rights category which is, I think, and as expressed before both limiting and inaccurate, would it be possible to create a Queer or LGBT Portal? While I am aware that both names are only truely relevant to the most recent period of our history, it is much more encompassing than gay rights. Gay rights is also only a small part of what the category seems to be currently bringing together.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zefrog (talk • contribs) . 13:41, February 15, 2006

  • An LGBT portal would be worthwhile, but I don't think that it would not do away with the need for a Gay/LGBT rights article, and a Gay/LGBT "rights by country" category. An LGBT portal would be much broader, along the line of Category:LGBT Wuzzy 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • At the moment the gay rights category seems to be working like an LGBT portal would covering ground which has very little to do with gay rights as such. And yes there would still be a need for something like a gay rights section. --Zefrog 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the Category:LGBT civil rights contains almost entirely articles related to LGBT rights and LGBT rights movements. None of the articles there are found in Category:LGBT. Wuzzy 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Zefrog: by "gay rights category", do you mean Category:LGBT civil rights? Category:Gay rights by country as Wuzzy suggested? Or do you mean this page? Surely a portal could be made "as well as" rather than "instead of" either one? See also: Template:Sexual orientation. ntennis 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: See also Template:LGBT. ntennis 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

The "1997-present" and "The movement today" seem repetitive to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. How do you propose to rectify this? ntennis 09:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of seminal lesbian separatist

I reverted seminal lesbian separatist. Old text:

Many women of the Gay Liberation movement felt frustated at the domination of the movement by men and formed separate organisations; some who felt gender differences between men and women could not be resolved developed "lesbian separatism". A seminal lesbian separatist book was Jill Johnston's "Lesbian Nation".

Since seminal may confusingly suggest semen in this context, I changed it back to this:

Many women of the Gay Liberation movement felt frustated at the domination of the movement by men and formed separate organisations; some who felt gender differences between men and women could not be resolved developed "lesbian separatism", influenced by writings such as Jill Johnston's 1973 book "Lesbian Nation".

To me, that is not only less potentially confusing (or even offensive), but it also gives better context to the surrounding words. Agreed? The Rod (☎ Smith) 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The joined sentence is now much too long. Seminal does not "confusingly suggest semen" in this context unless the reader is uncommonly silly. Jonathunder 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that is may offend, rather than confuse. Why not choose neutral langauge that means the same thing? Even some non-seperatists avoid this term, replacing it with 'germinal' or phrasing the sentence differently. As for sentence length, why not replace the semi-colon with a full stop? ntennis 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the revision is clearer and less potentially offensive.Lethiere 06:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Seminal is the word to use because it comes closest to the meaning that is being conveyed. Germinal may be a loose synonym but is less well-known and is actually more likely to confuse readers, IMO. Wikipedia's purpose is not to try to avoid offending anyone. It's purpose is to inform. Any lesbians who would bother to be outraged by a word cognate of semen (which itself means seed) must be so full of themselves that their opinion really shouldn't even be weighed into consideration. Of course, "seminal" in the sense being used might be called original research, unless another source can be found that declares the book seminal. If you're really determined to attack the use of the word, there's an angle for you. But I could give less than a crap if Wikipedia offends an easily-offended person somewhere just because we use appropriately descriptive language. -Kasreyn 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like there is a strong desire to avoid avoiding potentially offensive words. :-) Anyway, seminal is original research and the text with it is choppy, so at the risk of learning what "less than a crap" might be, I still suggest not using that wording. The Rod (☎ Smith) 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a desire to avoid avoiding giving offense. It's complete disinterest in whether anyone is offended. Wikipedia's primary goal is to be informative, not inoffensive, and if it comes down to either being "offensive" (possibly, maybe, we think) or failing to be true to the facts, then I'm going to go with the facts, and screw the thin-skinned people. That may be blunt, but it's what I believe. I think offendedness is in a person's mind, and all too often people choose to be offended by something in order to attract attention to themselves. Such self-aggrandisement doesn't deserve the complicity of an encyclopedia. -Kasreyn 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn you are being deliberately provocative. The whole point of collaborative editing is finding a version everyone can be happy with — even lesbian feminists, born again christians and others whose opinion you may think aren't worth consideration. The article is usually better for it, and certainly more robust. Language has a social power that is about more than just describing neutral "facts". See niggardly. Personally I agree with you that people often take offence unneccesarily, and the word "seminal" may be a case of this. But no-one is suggesting censoring a fact; rather, the sentence was re-worded. Do you object to the new version? If so, suggest another. Eventually, we will find a wording that everyone finds acceptable and is just as "informative". ntennis 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't object to the current wording, because "seminal", while a perfectly correct, descriptive, and inoffensive English word, was actually original research in that context. Thank you for providing the additional example of "niggardly", though the analogy isn't quite exact. Niggardly, by contrast with seminal, doesn't even remotely share its etymology with the word that thin-skinned ignoramuses confuse it with. I suppose it's a moot point anyway.
Deliberately provocative? I don't know. I apologize for saying "less than a crap", since crap, unlike seminal or niggardly, is a word that is intended to cause offense in its given context. "Thin-skinned ignoramus" above only applies to anyone foolish enough to volunteer for the title; certainly not to any of the clever editors on this page! But I think my substantive point remains, that Wikipedia's first duty is to the truth, not to political correctness. See my comment on gender-neutral pronoun for a more explicit statement of my position on linguistic revisionism.
In any case, I believe there is a fine line between consensus-building and servile pandering to political correctness. The first warning sign is when you're making changes to "avoid offense" before anyone has even complained. In fact it seems a bit arrogant and patronizing to me, to assume that just because the word "seminal" is a cognate of "semen", that it would offend lesbians. Isn't that assuming an awful lot about their beliefs? For instance, isn't it buying into the myth that all lesbians are man-haters to assume that they would be offended?
See, this is why Wikipedia has a "not censored for minors" policy, at least in part: because we really can't know our readers' motivations for looking up the information, and it's condescending to treat them as if they can't handle what we know. This is the great folly of political correctness: in its hopeless quest to bury our darker nature under a blanket of niceness, it infantilizes all expression, which prevents any attempt to understand and fix things. In this, I think, you're wrong on at least one point: the more words that are added to the taboo list for fear of some self-important extremist somewhere being offended, the less robust human expression becomes. Just ask a computer programmer which makes a programming language more robust: adding functions, or removing them. Respectfully, -Kasreyn 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

page rename (continued)

I just got bold and finally renamed the page as per discussion above. Not quite unilateral, but I thought it was a positive step that we can further discuss. Now going to hide under table. :o/ ntennis 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT civil rights

I removed the category LGBT civil rights from the "see also" list because the article itself is already in that category, so it seemed redundant to have linked twice. It was reverted so I'll leave it alone, but just wanted to put my reasoning here. ntennis 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious where you get the idea that men are more commonly prejudiced against LGBT people. They're certainly more outspoken about it, but that doesn't mean women can't be prejudiced and keep it to themselves. I've never noticed a gender difference in bigotry. It's just that among the typically bigoted people mentioned - older people, conservatives, christians, etc - women are taught all their lives not to speak out about their own beliefs. Kasreyn 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I only just saw this post. Some of the numeroud studies that have found that men hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality are already referenced in the article. Here they are again for good measure:
  • Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In "B. Greene and G.M. Herek (Eds.) Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues: Vol. 1 Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications." Thousands Oaks, Ca: Sage.
  • Kite, M.E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10 (1-2), 69-81.
  • Morin, S., & Garfinkle, E. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34 (1), 29-47.
  • Thompson, E., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and their correlates. Sex Roles, 13 (7/8), 413-427.
However, I do question whether this is true globally, as these studies appear to be conducted in the US. ntennis 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Page name revisited

The page was recently moved from LGBT movements to LGBT rights movement by User:Darkildor (who also added the note "do not move this page", commented out at the top). Many of the redirects were also updated to link to this new name. I can see that LGBT movements probably wasn't ideal, but the issue has been discussed above and the reasoning against "rights movement" was spelled out. I appreciate editors who are able to be bold in updating pages, but a page move is something that I think should be at least flagged on the talk page first. I moved the article to LGBT social movements for now, and a lot of the redirect pages updated by Darkildor have become double redirects.

For the record, my objection to "rights movement" is: (1) That many of the movements on the page cannot properly be called "rights" oriented — the Adolf Brand circle, lesbian feminism, gay lib, or even queer — but are more about a radical restructuring of society. Many in Gay Lib saw the homo/hetero distinction as something to be destroyed. Others have said the same thing about man/woman. The civil rights discourse is certainly a dominant one, but not universal. (2) These are disparate movements, not part of a unified single movement — hence the "s" on the end.

That all my 2 cents will buy for now. Any other thoughts welcome! ntennis 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly feel that this version deserved to stay where it was and have a separate section for other "social movements" as the entire issue of moving it from "gay rights" to "LGBT movements" was that people with the biased attitude wanted to water down the fact that it's a struggle for civil rights. However, I don't want to get into a page-move war so I'll leave it alone for now. Nonetheless gay rights deserves a page in and of itself especially considering many pages (over 2 months later) still link there anyway. Not to mention, the template on the page says rights anyway. Darkildor 06:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

While working toward a resolution on an introductory paragraph for homosexual agenda, i've found that the notion of an article solely about the gay rights movement is preferable over this article, which lumps them together. I'm not familiar with the various movements though, so I don't know how closely connected they all are. Moulder 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI to whoever added the split tag, gay rights already exists. -Smahoney 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now it's a redirect to this article. CovenantD 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, suppose I should have checked first. In that case, I'd support spinning it out in the event that there is enough content to justify its own article, or in the event that someone wants to write that content. -Smahoney 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a horrible title. The only time I've ever heard "LGBT" is in advocacy, and most people, particularly outside the coastal United States (and even then), won't know what you're talking about. "Gay rights" pretty much covers the first three, while the last deserves its own article, or mere mention in "Gay Rights", as of itself, it's not very notable.Timothy Usher 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
When User:Moulder put the split tag there, s/he suggested a seperate article for "gay rights", but in the talk page suggested a seperate article for the "gay rights movement". This page already serves as an overview of the history of a number of closely interwoven social movements, some of which have their own article, which is linked to along with a short summary in this article. See, for example, homophile (post-WW2 to mid-60s) and gay liberation (late 60s to early 70s). The section following gay lib is about the gay and lesbian rights movement (mid-1970s onwards). By all means, make a "gay and lesbian rights movement" article (or even a "gay rights movement" article if you prefer) about the movement from this period, and link to it in the appropriate section on this page. I'm not sure what exactly a "split" would entail, but I see no need to remove content from this article.
If you would rather make an article about "gay rights" in general (e.g. what rights exist in what parts of the world currently and historically), then please do so. I think a summary of such an article would also have a place here. (Note, this has been discussed above). That content doesn't yet exist here, so again, no need to split anything off.
I'm not exactly sure what User:Timothy Usher is suggesting, but it looks like s/he wants to reduce content relating to transgenderism (which s/he claims is non-notable) or move to a seperate article, and rename this article "gay rights". There are several problems with this suggestion, which should be clear from reading the article. Firstly, in the 19th and early 20th century movements, gender variance and same-sex sexuality were inseperable. Most of the key activists saw themselves as a third or intermediate gender. Likewise, the stonewall riots and gay lib had transgender people and issues at their core. The word gay had a different meaning then than it does today.
A further problem with Timothy Usher's suggestion is that (as discussed several times above) many historical movements like gay liberation, lesbian feminism and queer were not necessarily focussed on "rights", but on a structural transformation of society. See American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) vs. Black Power.
I'll remove the tag for now, but hope that discussion might continue. ntennis 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It'd be thoughtful of you were you to stop referring to editors as "s/he" and start using the standard English pronouns. If you truly don't know (although my name ought to clue you in), use "he or she" or some circumlocution. Don't use transgender pronouns - it's novel, and it's incivil.Timothy Usher 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it's incivil, though it certainly isn't good English. "Novel" is a kind description - "trendy" suits better. Kasreyn 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love the irony when accusations of "incivility" are used as a snide dig at another editor. For the record, I didn't write s/he as a "transgender pronoun", or to be "trendy" (?!?!) — it's simply informal talk page shorthand for "she or he", much as "gay liberation" is abbreviated as "gay lib". It isn't wise to make assumptions about another editor's gender, especially when they are working on queer-related subjects. Please try to be more constructive with comments in future. ntennis 02:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, ntennis. I didn't read above Usher's post, so I wasn't aware he was mistaken about your use. I assumed he knew what he was talking about, and that you were using one of the recently invented nonsense pronouns like se/sa/sim, which I do consider trendy. S/he is, of course, simply a useful shorthand. I'll take more care in the future to be sure that I know whether the person I'm replying to knew what they were talking about. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Se/Sa/Sim??? Trendy among whom? Creation of pronouns from scratch is highly unusual. Do you know of any link which desribes or exemplifies this usage?Timothy Usher 06:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go: Gender neutral pronoun. (My mistake, it was "ze" etc. not "se" etc., like it makes any difference.) They were invented out of thin air for reasons of political correctness (ie a trend of thought), and are trendy among the PC. Kasreyn 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What insanity. Thank you.Timothy Usher 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement

I'm puzzled as to why the first section after contents is Opposition. The most important thing about any group is not who opposes it, but what that group is. Surely we should first take the time to describe who the LGBT movement is composed of, what their goals and aims are, and what successes and failures they've had, before we describe their opposition. It's too easy to forget in the heat of editing, but a Wikipedia article should be designed in order to educate a reader who is ignorant of the topic. Since we assume an ignorant reader, they need to be given the information on the topic in a logical progression. Kasreyn 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially as the "opposition" section is likely to be expanded. Why not have a go at re-ordering the first few sections? ntennis 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Kasreyn 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's really not surprising that Opposition was first, since the oppenents have written most of the articles about the "homosexual agenda," "gay rights opposition," and "special rights." CovenantD 14:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe an "opposition" section is even desirable. Currently, it reads like a psychoanalysis of opponents - LGBT groups are described according without sources and in distinctly favorable tones, while the opponents aren't even given a chance to speak for themselves with attribution. How many creeds are described on Wikipedia in these terms? Think how the article would look if the situation were reversed. And consider that this level of bias does promote an agenda, but does not do so effectively. The more scholarly and less activist a source appears, the more likely it is to be taken seriously.
Better would be to, using sources, describe the specific issues and philosophies, and include all non-marginal views in the appropriate section.Timothy Usher 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems quite relevant here: Article structures which can imply a viewTimothy Usher 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The first three paragraphs are wholly unsourced. Additionally, several sections of this article are palpably unneutral. If the reader can discern what position the article takes - particularly where there are no sources - we have a problem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for socio-political activism.Timothy Usher 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive rather than continually slapping unneccessary tags all over the article and deleting content. If you disagree with some particular information in the article, be specific and suggest an alternative here. In articles about social movements, stating their goals is not "soapboxy" — it's crucial information. Yes, the article could do with more sources — why not go and find some? in the meantime, there are already over 30 sources for this article, well above average for an article of this size, and a legion of tags breaking up the article is not warranted. While there's no consensus about the use of "unsourced" and "POV" tags, the usage guide for Template:Unreferenced suggests they should be placed "either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page."
The lead section acts as a summary for the rest of the article, where the reader can find the specific references easily. Most featured articles do not have references for the lead section! And many have fewer references in total than the number already here. I can guarantee you that a lively discussion on this talk page will be far more effective in improving the article than an edit war over "POV" and "unsourced" tags. ntennis 04:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
ntennis, you are sorely mistaken if you believe that these tags ought be placed on the talk page, rather than in the article itself. It is also unclear to me why you are so insistent upon removing them. The two paragraphs after the intro are completely unsourced, which isn't surprising considering their activist tone. Frankly, I was considering the {{Sermon}} tag.
When stating a movement's goals, it is good to be specific. Let's look at paragraph three:
"Although there is a wide range of opinions within the various LGBT movements, most agree that all people deserve equal rights, equal respect and parity in law, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, and that prejudice (homophobia, biphobia and transphobia) is dangerous, not just to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people, but to all members of society. It is also commonly argued that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and cannot be consciously changed, and attempts to alter sexual orientation are generally opposed in principle."
Most opponents of LGBT movements, at least in America where this LGBT term orginates, would also agree that all people deserve "equal rights, equal respect and parity in law" - the question is typically what constitutes equal rights and respect. In fact, to say "regardless of" is highly distortive - the goal is instead to establish sexual orientation (itself a POV phrase for something that arguably is equally well be described as a pattern of behavior) as a protected class. In other words, no one is saying, you lose the right to free speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, to not face racial discrimination, etc., because of sexual orientation.
It'd be better to say, most wish to add sexual orientation and "gender identification" to legally-protected classes analogous to race, religion, national origin, etc. Most wish to legalize same-sex marriage, prevent states from criminalizing same-sex acts, prevent employers and landdlords from taking sexual orientation and "gender identification" into account, etc, and provide sources to show that these are the issues at hand. Then let readers judge for themselves how this should be interpreted. If we are merely characterizing the movements' own rhetoric, they should be sourced and attributed, not summed up by you.
That "homophobia, biphobia and transphobia" are dangerous to all members of society? Are you sure that "most within LGBT movements" agree with this? I'm not. The more typical argument is that it's unfair, and is dangerous to the proposed protected classes. The current language sounds rather like someone's personal opinion. Sources are needed.
"It is commonly argued" is weasel wording, pure and simple.
That's paragraph three. We could go on, but I think you get the idea. We can't take a stand as to whether the goals of these movements are fair or desirable, and it's quite clear that the current version does exactly that. The lack of sources enables this.
I could just go in with a hatchet and remove all unsourced statements, as Jimbo Wales has been quoted as highly recommending. But I thought I'd place the tag to give you and other editors a chance to source it. Then we can take a look at what's being said, and discuss how to fairly characterize it.Timothy Usher 04:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spelling out some of your concerns. In addition to the "Goals" section, you also placed a "non-neutral" tag on the "Opposition and internal tensions" section. What is your concern with this section? It seems neutral to me. In addition to these two, you have placed POV and non-neutral tag on the top of the article. What is the purpose of this tag? I believe you can make a positive contribution to the article. Find the sources rather than waiting for other editors to do it. Suggest an alternate wording — I would agree, for example, with removing "all members of society" or finding a notable person or group that says that. Write an "opposition" section. Referenced of course! Both readers and other editors would appreciate this more than adding excessive warnings throughout the article. ntennis 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
When I have problems with an article's sourcing, I prefer to go through and add a {{citation needed}} to each individual unsourced claim of importance. This is what I did at Michael Savage (commentator), and it got other editors interested in helping to find sources. It's still not perfect, but the article is better than it was before. POV-section and unreferenced-section are more vague and in my opinion, not as constructive. Kasreyn 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Antagonism

Timothy Usher, so far your *only* input here has been to make shrill demands on other editors, delete valid content (which I restored), disrupt the article with an ever-growing collection of tags (and revert repeatedly when they are removed), refuse to answer questions and refuse to do any of the work yourself that you are demanding others do. You came here criticising the article apparently without fully reading it first, or reading the talk page discussions, which had already been over the points you made several times before. I've respectfully tried to engage with you and draw out your ideas, and you've refused to make any constructive suggestions. You've also made an unwarranted accussation of incivility against me rather than address any of the points in my post. If you are genuinely concerned with civility, you may like to review your own actions here.

This is clearly a field of knowledge in which you have not read widely and it's remarkable to me that you are so confident in your own rectitude that you continually revert other editors rather than engaging in a constructive attempt to improve the article. I've added most of the sources that are already here and expressed a willingness to find more. You have found none and expressed no willingness to find any. Kasreyn and I have made suggestions for ways to address soucing issues, and I've pointed out that your use of the tags goes against the usage guide. Your refusal to consider these suggestions suggests to me that you are trying to use the tags to discredit the subject of the article, rather than genuinely help it become better sourced. In fact, your enmity discourages rather than encourages other editors to contribute here.

I honestly hope you can get past your antagonism, and I will gladly accept any gesture of good faith on your part and willingness to collaborate. I also want to encourage all other editors to comment on the tags, the sourcing and the neutrality issues. ntennis 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little busy now, but let's continue the discussion in a bit. I hope you don't mind that I've corrected the spelling of this section title.Timothy Usher 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK thankyou. ntennis 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Catholic beliefs Gay or lesbian rights should not be a law. Who believes me?

I don't. I believe that God created us exactly as we are, and that He would not be such a sociopath as to condemn some of us to Eternal Hellfire for something He made us as!
Oh, and I corrected your abysmal spelling. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Give to God what is God's and to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. This is not a theocracy. You may enjoy the right to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But you may not impose your beliefs on others. The United States is a secular democracy. It has been since the beginning. It will be until the end. The church and the state are seperated, not only for the protection of religious institutions from the state-but also to protect the state from religious institutions. And to protect rerligious institutions from each other. The Catholic Church may condemn gay rights. But the Episcopelians clearly endorse them. And the Catholics may not force their view of government upon the Episcopelians. Nor upon the Buddhists, the Reform Jews, the Unitarians, nor upon anyone else. If you cannot accept this, then may I suggest you declare your allegiance to some foreign flag, and try your luck there. I hear Iran is a theocratic dictatorship where the church and state are one. Perhaps you would be happier living in Tehran. As for me, this is my country as much as it is yours. The difference between us is more significant than our sexual preferences and our religious beliefs. I love my country, diverse and all-inclusive, secular and democratric, even when that means I have to tolerate people I don't like-such as yourself. You, on the other hand, hate this land of freedom. You despise freedom itself, specifically the freedom to love. Since you hate my country, I call you a traitor, and I vow to protect the red white and blue from the likes of you.

- Now that we have both used the Talk page to discuss personal opinions instead of how to improve this article, may I suggest that you keep your personal opinions of the topic confined to the Talk page alone, and not to the main article. If you are incapable of doing so, I will be all too happy to post a warning on your page, reminding you that this sort of behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia.Wandering Star 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BEAUTIFUL! Wandering Star, my hat is off to you kind sir. You have a wonderful day! E. Sn0 =31337= 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Media mention

Apparently this article is pointed to (via a redirect) by a Meade, Kansas newspaper, as well as this national radio program: http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/index_20060819.html (Story title is "Over The Rainbow"). -- Beland 05:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! The paper is the Meade County News, and I think the story was written by its editor, Denice Kuhns. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the original article. According to the radio program linked above, a local inn flew a rainbow flag, and Kuhns published a story about it, directing people to a wikipedia site to ensure that readers understood the flag's link to gay pride. The proprietor couldn't remember the exact address given by the newspaper, but thought it was something like wikipedia slash gay rights slash flag. ntennis 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate mention of the Marxist/Socialist origins of the modern gay rights movement

The article makes an inadequate mention of the role Marxist thought played in the early Gay rights movement, beginning with Harry Hay and his fellow members of the Mattachine Society who started out in the Communist Party USA. [1]

Many of the early gay-rights manifestoes were explicitly Marxist. I would just like to know why this has been omitted? --146.145.70.200 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The relationship of Marxism to LGBT social movements is fraught at best. Hay was kicked out of the Communist Party for being homosexual. Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin, actively opposed the recognition of sexual freedom as a legitimate issue for the Left. French socialist intellectual Daniel Guérin wrote that some of the most vehement opposition to sexual liberation came from Marxists.
LGBT social movements have largely identified with socialist thought, from the 19th century to recent times, although the Left has rarely returned the interest. But predominently, these socialist currents have been libertarian rather than Marxist in character. Socialism is already linked in the article, as is libertarian socialism. ntennis 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.