Talk:LGBT/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

No references?

Resolved. References added. Banjeboi 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How can there be no references in this entire article? This may be the longest page on wikipedia with no references. Although I am sure the intentions of this page are good, it actually has the potential to do the LGBT community more harm than good, especially if it is not properly edited. 76.93.90.245 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am adding tags to the article to hopefully inspire some responsible editing and referencing. I'll remind everyone that unreferenced material that is challenged may be removed if nothing is done within a reasonable timeframe. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some tags, which will hopefully inspire some editing. Let's try to fix this within a month. If the problems aren't addressed by August 2008, I'm going to start deleting stuff. Cool? JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly. With few exceptions, which I've addressed, everything in the article is spot on and simply needs in-line citations so we have proof that it was verified and isn't original research. Setting a time limit to start the deletions doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperation that the project needs. It's good to be critical and address concerns but then we also need to keep an atmosphere of improving articles. As a member of the LGBT wikiproject I can tell you I've never had a time here that didn't involve dealing with homophobic and transphobic vandalism. I'm sure others have had similar experience. Asa general rule our articles are targeted for all manner of deletionism so let's just stay focussed on improving this one by introducing references in-line so those who read the article can be assured it's accurate and not someone's bloggy opinion. Banjeboi 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. So far I've reffed the Intro, History and Variants sections and got halfway through the Criticism section. Banjeboi 15:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit - Sorry

I changed the order of Gay and Lesbian in the opening paragraph, only to realize the document title (but not the link I followed) listed it as LGBT. I was trying to make the definition match the order of the letters. I saw I was mistaken and changed it back. Sorry for any confusion.--Legomancer (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

last 2 parargrpaphs

Resolved. References added. Banjeboi 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

most of second to last paragraph& last para are suspect. I'm sure you can oppose LGBT grouping of various subcultures and still be an outspoken gay activist. I'm betting that thier are tons of gay rights activist groups that advocate for less than all those under the LGBT umbrella. can we reflect this in the proper place in some article and maybe link to under the criticsim header here? thanks Farqwar (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am not gay or a gay activist, or a member of any sort of LGBT community, but I can see the obvious problems with grouping all of these individuals together in one clump. A little ironic, actually. I would be offended if I were gay. Unfortunately it is hard to edit for content, but we can ask for references to ensure a neutral POV and factual accuracy. Please see my comments above in the "no references" discussion. I do not doubt that the LGBT community is legitimate in the sense that there are individuals identified with this label, I just want to make sure it is fairly represented on wikipedia. I am also trying to generate some discussion and interest in his article so that I won't have to babysit it or do all the work addressing these issues. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If your offended about labeling, then you may in fact be a queer theorist. the true irony is that there's a label for people who don't like labels. but who cares about who's in or out! call it LGT, or LGTBQ, or LGTBQQ?IP (lesbian, gay, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersex, pan-sexual, and any other self identifiable name in the dictionary)... or maybe just LGTBQ for short. you need an identifiable term to use in research. All the education I've received has supported the variation section of this article.

there's a whole list of names people identify as, and most don't see it as a continuum. It may be that labels and definitions are too general to describe everyone fully. but what are we suppose to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.86.144 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

These are summed up rather nicely actually but if there is another article that covers the material better it may make sense to coordinate the content to reflect that. Banjeboi 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Acronym?

Resolved. Change made. Banjeboi 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that LGBT is not an acronym, contrary to the article. An acronym is a word formed from the first letters of other words (like AIDS, Laser, etc.). Unless LGBT is pronounced as a whole word, it is not an acronym; it is an initalism. Is there some special pronounciation of LGBT that I'm not aware of or is it just pronounced 'L-G-B-T'?. Stephen Shaw (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard LGBT pronounced as one whole word just, like you said, "L-G-B-T". So I guess it does make it an "initalism".--Dil (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated and linked to Acronym and initialism. Banjeboi 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wider variation

• NOTE: To reply you must do so here, this talk is mirrored onto many talkpages and is designed to be concurrent with all.

Is there an article that has a wider variation that is not exclusively for Lesbians, Gays, Bi(s), and Transgenders. I am looking for a word or article that is on the lines of "everything not heterosexual" and would include Asexuality, Autosexuality, Pansexuality, Paraphilia, Pomosexual, Zoophilia and, like i said, anything not "straight". I ask because i feel that people who aren't "straight" are usually grouped into that one social group and stereotype, one common stereotype (for men) that is prevalent is femininity (Effeminacy) if they are not "straight". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Queer/Queer Studies would probably be what you're looking for. though I doubt there is a single catch all phrase that means everything not heterosexual.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Queer means non-heteronormative political striving. It does not necessarily refer to what you are looking for. I don't think there would be such a thing within the realm of language, to be honest. Diachresis.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I do not believe there will be a phrase meaning everything not heterosexual except - non-heterosexual. For the sake of usage, LGBT is much better than queer in reflecting the homo/bi/trans/inter community. goodone (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We could take a page from Orwell and let 'everything not straight' be known henceforth as "unstraight". Who's with me? Obietom (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is non-heterosexuals. Also, I must admit I'm curious to see where this goes. Banjeboi 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I say that if you're aiming for a word defining a group by who they're not, non-heterosexuals would be a fair choice -- it communicates exactly what you intend: a catch-all "non-typical sexuality" type. (My intuition says most people, straight or otherwise, won't bat an eyelash at the word's "... perceived heteronormativity.") hithereimdan (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LUG, BUG and GUG

“ LUG (for lesbian until graduation), GUG (gay until graduation) and BUG (bisexual until graduation) are facetious terms for young people (most commonly female) who experiment with same-sex relationships on a temporary basis, particularly while attending college or university. ”

I've removed the above as it doesn't seem to be variations on LGBT as much as simply other acronyms to describe someone. Banjeboi 23:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't real, chicky babe. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be real but isn't appropriate for this article. Banjeboi 10:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

The second to last paragraph of the history section currently ends with:

It was thought that transsexual people were acting out stereotypes; and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were simply afraid to "come out" and be honest about their identity.[10] The movement underwent growing pains, and these are seen even today in the fact that there is no agreement as to whether the acronym should be GLBT or LGBT.[11]

Two concerns are as follows. First, the second of the above two sentences following the first suggests an equivalence or similarity between, on the one hand, the exclusion of bisexuals and/or transsexual/transgender communities, on the one hand, and a second situation in which no one is excluded, but merely the order or which group's "letter" comes first, is lacking in agreement.

The second concern applies to the last sentence, even if it stands on its own. It suggests that there is a problem ("growing pains") to the lack of 100% final status of either GLBT or LGBT exclusively, to the exclusion of the other. This is a POV, and one many would not agree with. This POV suggests that unless one of the two groups, Gay or Lesbian, is relegated to "second place" in the acronym, then there is a problem, something lacking, growing pains. An equally possible POV would be that this is something positive: that there is the freedom to use either word, either acronym/initialism. Until, or unless, there is a single word X which means either of the two categories (which would allow "XBT" to replace both "GLBT" and "LGBT"), insisting on the POV that there MUST be one acronym/initialism only, is the same as insisting that either "gay" or "lesbian" be permanently and always in "second place" in the word. The POV that that would be progress and getting past "growing pains" rather than a neutral or negative, I think is worth being reconsidered. --Harel (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my head is spinning from too much coffee. Could you instead break down this to two different talk sections, one for each sentence and propose a rewrite if you have one? i agree that it's pretty generalized and confusing as is. Banjeboi 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just logged in here again..per the reasoning above, I would suggest that the "growing pains" including anti-bi and anti-trans sentiments, are one thing, and a completely separate issue, and thus to be mentioned in a separate area, is the lack of a single initialism. So for now I would suggest just

"It was thought that transsexual people were acting out stereotypes; and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were simply afraid to "come out" and be honest about their identity.[10] The movement underwent growing pains, and these continue to this day"

I recently tried to revert the initialism to GLBT. As far as I understood the movement, at least in Canada, has always been the "GLBT movement." Why change the initialism? Who made this decision? What is the basis?

The lack of a single initialism (which as noted, could be seen as a good pro-pluralism thing) is already mentioned elsewhere. Harel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me! Good work. Banjeboi 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is it called when someone who is heterosexual but has homosexual and or bisexual feelings? For example, his mind may tell him that homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong but his heart says that homosexuality and bisexuality is right. He identifies with heterosexuality as he likes girls publicly but at the same time feels that he likes boys too but privately. What would that person be called? Thank you. 71.121.81.9 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Repressed? El_C 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This can apply to some cases, but only to people who are actively repressing the feelings, it would be a subset. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You might try bi-curious and questioning. Banjeboi 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These are great. I'd also suggest heteroflexible. As above, these are subcategories though, because not all people with feelings are curious about them or questioning, just as they may also not be repressing them, or with my term, be flexible about their sexuality. There needs to be a more neutral and unifying term for all of these. Honestly it's all 'bisexual' to me, because if you have hetero+homo feelings you are a bisexual, but your sex life may not be. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Along those same lines, is there a term for someone who is attracted to members of the same sex, but holds a genuine belief that engaging in homosexual intercourse is immoral (or otherwise wrong), and as such refrains from doing so? Nonpracticing homosexual? Recovering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Same as above although immoral suggests a religious component as well. -- Banjeboi 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'Immoral' does not suggest a religious component, morals come from things other than religion too. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstinent is the term that first comes to mind. Mdumas43073 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This can certainly describe some people, but not all people who object to homosexuality object to sexuality in entirety. For example, a married man can consummate sex with his wife, thus making him not abstinent, yet refrain from homosexual sex as 74 has described, so the term is not inclusive enough. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these would describe the entirety of what you are referring to. 'Nonpractising' works, but being attracted to members of the same sex doesn't make someone a homosexual by necessity (they can be bisexual with a preference for the opposite sex, most probably are). Similarly 'recovering' is not NPOV because it implies that homosexuality is something you 'recover' from like a malady, which is not a supported belief in a non-religious context. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay and bisexual tend to be social identities and many simply are sexual and have sexual desires beyond a heteronormative model yet will never labels themselves as anything but strait, heterosexual and normal. -- Banjeboi 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the "See Also" links...

Resolved

I find it a bit inappropriate to link BDSM from the LGBT page. Maybe its there because its also an acronym, but I still don't think it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andou Hayate (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'll remove it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm assuming it was put there because both are oppressed sexual minorities. Kairos (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think it belongs, though. Do you? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A link to a list of acronyms for people would be more appropriate, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

Wiktionary redirects LGBT to GLBT. Wikipedia redirects GLBT to LGBT. Which is better? jg (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Use LGBT on Wikipedia when it's open for choice; if someone puts GLBT, or LGBTI or other variation, it can be left as is as all roads tend to lead here. There isn't one group or person who speaks for all LGBT people but the broad consensus is that LGBT is the most widely used initialism at the moment. This could change but would likely happen over a long period of time. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, what is your lexicographic source for your claim that “LGBT is the most-widely-used initialism at the moment”? – joeclark (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure on which authority either is used, should we just see what abbreviation shows up more in google? Assuming all things equal, why not just make it alphabetical and use BGLT? Having bisexuals come first is also more sexually neutral. Another thing, the term 'gay' can include lesbians too, so why not BGT? Or since we are using technical terms and gay/lesbian are both slang, why not BHT using 'homosexual'? Tyciol (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First off homosexual to describe gay and lesbian people is deprecated and generally seen as pejorative when not used as a clinical/scientific setting, which this is not. Alphabetical may make sense but LGBT is politically motivated which also likely accounts for its more widespread usage as is evident on the Ghits measure. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Resource Centers on Campus

I have a question for the community. My younger sister, a freshman at Syracuse University, recently tried to add some material to the wikipedia article about the school. She is a novice, and admittedly some of her edits were questionable, but I think her wanting to add something on the LGBT student center there I think is valid. She said it was to honor me, which I really appreciated. The problem is, there is an editor there who apparently feels he has an ownership stake in that page who has reversed essentially everything she wanted to add. Is this a precedence we want to establish, disallowing LGBT student activities to be mentioned on a University's Wikipedia entry? Please provide some feedback. And I'm sorry to put this as an anonymous edit, but I am (sheepishly) not fully out...yet. I don't think using my usual Username would advance my cause on other pages I have a stake in. (I know, I know...) Thanks alot. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a long-ish response about this content at User talk:Benjiboi#Request for your input, FWIW. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: LGBT Mexicans/hispanics/etc?

Why isn't there a category for GLBT (the way I spell it) hispanics or GLBT hispanic americans? Am I just not finding it? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See if Category:LGBT people by nationality helps; I'm not sure if we seperate by ethnicity as well but that should be addressed at WT:LGBT. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no category for LGBT Mexican Americans/hispanics. What gives? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the last line of the criticism specifically mention Asian parents as being intolerant? I feel like its singling them out unfairly. Hjason887 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)jh

I think it's an attempt to present the content as the sourcing reports it, any suggestions how it could be worded better? -- Banjeboi 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Include the Q for LBGTQ

Is there any reason why this article doesn't include the Q by default and simply mentions it in the description? DPic (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I and ? and a few others, Q is still gaining usage and isn't widespread or widely agreed upon definition. We do however include LBGTQ in our redirects here so feel free to use that in articles. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia was actually the first place i had heard LGBTQ without the Q. It seems pretty standard to include it since it stands for queer/questioning and queer is the umbrella term for anything not already included in LGBT. Shadowmage13 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard in some places but certainly not universal. Personally it seems most often used in context with younger focussed groups and indeed all the terms have morphed with each generation. LGBTQ groups that cater to students, in particular, are naturally dealing with general sexuality issues and similar to P-FLAG need to embrace anyone who wants to be involved as sometimes peope remain closeted so don't want to identify as anything but "a friend of". On Wikipedia, however, feel free to use it in the context of what sources state. Like if a group is a LGBTQ-focussed group then go ahead and state that. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT/homosexualist slant

This article, like many Wikipedia articles, puts an extreme pro-homosexual slant on the presentation of the material. In mainstream American society, homosexuality is considered a deviant and immoral behavior, and these articles do not reflect the largely negative understanding of homosexual behavior held by the overwhelming majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of the international community. The article positions people who engage in such behaviors as morally entitled to engage in such behaviors, and meanwhile that entitlement, or that "right," assumed as fact in this article, is in fact at the center of the debate over homosexuality. Simply, the article presupposes that people who disagree with homosexual behavior OR the homosexual lifestyle are wrong for disagreeing with that behavior/lifestyle.

Changes should be made that reflect the growing recognition of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle, both now and in the past. The article mentions that derogatory terms were used for homosexuality and does not describe what those terms are. A balanced article would include both good and bad terms for behavior that is, on the whole, considered deviant.

Until such changes are made so that the tone of the article is not that of a press release from a homosexualist group, this article will remain imbalanced and not neutral. 75.67.81.144 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — 75.67.81.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response - This is an article about the abbreviation, or initialism. It is not about the acceptability or otherwise of a "behaviour" or "lifestyle". The article is covering the development of non-derogatory terms. The derogatory terms are in other articles that can be found at Category:LGBT terms.

I take issue with your words "growing recognition of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle". This indicates a poor understanding of the origins of homosexuality within the genetic makeup of all animals including humans. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle nor is it a learned behaviour. Because there is a genetic basis for LGBT, there is no reasonable justification in a modern scientific world to call it deviant. Can you also give sources for your words "growing recognition"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that the anon who made the comment has fewer than 10 ever Wikipedia edits, and was likely just trying to cause trouble. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you sending this for re-assessment then? I don't think there has been anything but improvements since promotion. Am I missing something? -- Banjeboi 10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mm? The GAR and my comment here, under this header, are two entirely separate matters. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps just answer why it's being sent for re-assessment? -- Banjeboi 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons given at the GAR page. I don't think the GA pass was hasty or anything (quite the opposite, which is apparent when looking at the subpage - which by the way should have been transcluded here somewhere, but that's beside the point), but I do think the article should be reassessed. I don't unequivocally think it fails GA, just that it needs further looking-at. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I finally found the GAR page which does explain the issues. I'll look into these when I have a bit of time to properly address. -- Banjeboi 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed - "In non-Western cultures" section

“ Compared with its acceptance in some Asian cultures, the LGBT community is, in some ways, more acceptable in Western culture, since many Asian parents have negative images of lesbians or gays. Many Asian languages have no word for lesbian, gay or coming out, and there are few lesbian role models to look to. ”

The above seems to need clarifying and work, let's clean it up and fix it before re-adding, it may need to be sent to a more appropriate article instead. -- Banjeboi 14:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Us and them" attitude

I believe that this article is in need of a fair bit of work. I'd rather spend time improving the article and sourcing references than discussing them here, but such a request has been made. I have recently added into the intro a summary of information contained elsewhere in the article. This was removed for 'zero citations' despite me adding the 'citation pending' flag. This, despite there being no new ideas in the additions.

I've also started to shuffle some words around in an effort to focus the subject, mainly in the later paragraphs. There seems to be a tendency at the moment that anything pro-LGBT community is subject focused, and anything anti-LGBT community (for want of a better phrase) is focused on alien individuals. Rather than flag the sections as bias, I have tried to improve some of the more obvious examples. Owing to the time involved this may take a while, as neutrality is important. TokenPassport (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed

“ For people who find 'LGBT' offensive, 'political correctness' is a paradoxical and ironic problem since a large number of people subscribe to the LGBT idea, causing and campaigning vigorously for the same kind of offense which they believe they are preventing. ”

Sourced to (ref name="That's Revolting"/), which is a valid critical opinion of mainstreaming LGBT culture this sentence seems more confusing than not and IMHO unneeded for the lede certainly. It could be useful in the criticism section as long as (i) it's stating something different than what we already have and (ii) it makes sense. If something is confusing to me, and I wrote most of what's here already, than I guarantee it's lost on many of our readers and that's who we write for. -- Banjeboi 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That sentence not only is confusing, but also is not written in an encyclopedic tone. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, but I think it's something like "I believe this term is trying to be too politically correct (e.g. not offend anyone), and yet I'm offended by it. How ironic is that?" That doesn't really seem worth including. --Alynna (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Phrase

Hi, I'm translating this article but I'm having problems with a certain phrase:

The movement underwent identity conflicts with various entities including or excluding various LGBT communities; these conflicts continue to this day.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what this means. You can have identity conflicts, or conflicts with other entities, but both at the same time? Could someone clarify this for me? Thanks :) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Each community that is collectively included has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how to, align with other gender and sexuality-based communities at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.

Does this help? -- Banjeboi 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I get it. ^^ Does it mean that each of the communities (let's say L) have struggled to form their own identities and their relationships with the other communities (G, B & T), at times excluding other subgroups (for example, T)? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. In addition - although I couldn't source it yet so left it out - each group has also struggled with excluding subgroups within itself. In addition to socio-economic and racial lines there is exclusions based on the prevailing standard of those considered the top of the food chain at any one time. In the Stonewall days everyone was pretty much those freaks and fruits and there were only so many so they were at the same places. As the various communities grew and split there was enough to start excluding each other and turn the general mainstream hostilities toward one another. This continues and may just be a part of human nature that there are social strata wherever people exist. -- Banjeboi 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha, too true. Ok, great. Thank you so much for your help! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! -- Banjeboi 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition of terms in the lead?

As seen here, I reverted the excessive terms that Hodgdon's secret garden added to the lead. I did this because in addition to being excessive, some of them are not called orientations and some are debated regarding this topic (which is noted lower in the article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Had poor sourcing too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the contribution to a wikilink of Human sexuality spectrum#Commonly labeled sexualities (diff - plus, please note sourcing below). Thanks.

1. Human sexuality spectrum#Commonly labeled sexualities (Wikipedia)
2. LearnNC
3. LBBTQIA.UCDavis.edu
4. "LGBTQIA+: A Breakdown of the Letters on the Spectrum," Roth Lovins - November 15, 2015 Ballbearings magazine
5. Comprehensive* List of LGBTQ+ Vocabulary Definitions, Itspronouncedmetrosexual.com
6. TheTrevorProject
7. CompassionateHealing
8. Privacy.LGBT
9. WattPad

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, that edit you made is better, but the Human sexuality spectrum article really should not exist. I see that it had a deletion discussion and that most editors wanted it merged. The merge options were the Human sexuality and Sexual orientation articles. Out of those two, it should be merged to the Human sexuality article, but not before it's rid of any WP:Original research, the wording is cleaned up, and anything unsourced or poorly is downsized unless it can be reliably sourced. I'll see about merging it at some point, and the link you added will then point to a section there. As for the sources you listed above, those are poor sources. But at least you didn't use Wikipedia as a source in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How about

1. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans* Individuals Living with Dementia: Concepts, Practice and Rights, Sue Westwood & Elizabeth Price, 2016 (p. 29; referencing various terms, including "non-binary"/genderqueer, two-spirit)
2. November 21, 2014 Time magazine (referencing "questioning"; intersex; and, even, "allies")
3. Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, Lani Ka’ahumanu & Loraine Hutchins, Riverdale Avenue Books, 2015 (p. 15)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Per above, sourcing was not my sole issue with what you added, and it is not my sole issue with the existence of the Human sexuality spectrum article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, regarding the extra source you presented above and these, what are you proposing? Are you proposing that your previous content be returned to the lead? If so, I state that it should not be. Let me repeat: "Genderqueer/nonbinary," "demisexual," "2-spirit," "intersex," "questioning," "asexual," "allies," "pansexual," and "polyamorous" being in the lead is excessive. Furthermore, you called them "orientation designations." The word orientation is usually taken to mean "sexual orientation" in the context of LGBT and other sexuality topics. But genderqueer/nonbinary, two-spirit, intersex, questioning, allies, and polyamorous are not sexual orientations. And what sources even call them "orientation designations"? Lastly, as made clear in the article, there is debate over whether some of these terms do or should fall under the LGBT category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think my original "bold" contribution was severely flawed nonetheless the present addition of a link to somewhere else on WP about the spectrum is fine, too, in my opinion. (As for the above commentary, I apologize that I may have caused readers of the talkpage confusion. I was just sharing sourcing that contributors to this wonderfully collaborative project may/may not see fit to make use of.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, okay. Thanks for explaining. Keep in mind that the terms queer, questioning and intersex are already appropriately included in the lead. When it comes to "allies," straight allies are not considered LGBT (as far as a strict reading of the initialism goes), although some consider them as falling within the LGBT community. That stated, mention of "allies" is also included in the article (it's just not in the lead). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well, maybe in some places or times, even being an ally is considered "suspect," who knows. Whatever the case, this topic of same-sex sexual orientations is not an areas of much study for me so I'll refrain from advocating any special verbal formulations here in the encyclopedia. (Re orientation, terms change. Sex used to mean "gender" but now "carnality." Sexuality still references merely gender occasionally, perhaps. Two-spirits orient toward society-as-a-whole as a members in a manner of "both" genders, hence are in a group of their own. Maybe referring to sexuality-as-gender could include reference to two-spiritedness. Been sorta tongue-tied here, let me start again. Perhaps any set of individuals' way of orienting toward whatever other set of individuals via gender identities can be thought to be included in the term "orientations".--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Sex" still means "gender" or "biological sex" in enough cases; see the Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles. But I understand what you mean. Words do change. However, "orientation" when speaking of LGBT and other sexuality topics still usually means "sexual orientation." So we need to be careful with our wording on matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20160714093127/https://www.udayton.edu/womenscenter/info/lgbt/terms-and-definitions.php to https://www.udayton.edu/womenscenter/info/lgbt/terms-and-definitions.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521105407/http://vadenprd.stanford.edu/special-topics/lgbtq-health/glossary to http://vadenprd.stanford.edu/special-topics/lgbtq-health/glossary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606202143/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/oii-releases-new-resource-on-intersex-issues-13999.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/oii-releases-new-resource-on-intersex-issues-13999.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109003322/http://www.gayleeds.com/editors/article/_LGB-or-LGBT-or-LGBTQ-or-What/ to http://www.gayleeds.com/editors/article/_LGB-or-LGBT-or-LGBTQ-or-What/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010152330/http://directory.lgbtcenters.org/ to http://directory.lgbtcenters.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525203730/http://lgbt.foundation/policy-research/The-National-LGB-T-Partnership/ to http://lgbt.foundation/policy-research/The-National-LGB-T-Partnership/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

---

LGBT → LGBTQ – "LGBT" was certainly the predominant form at the time this article was created, but there's since been a solid and well-documented shift, and "LGBTQ" is clearly the most common standard now. To be clear, I don't think it would be helpful to move this article every time another subgroup comes along to add another letter to the alphabet soup that the most extended permutations have turned into — "K" for "kinky" being the newest — but the most common base form seen in standard sources now pretty consistently includes Q. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:Common name and the 2017 discussion now located at Talk:LGBT/Archive 1#Changing title to LGBTQ+. I see no proof that "LGBTQ is clearly the most common standard now." And proof has yet to be demonstrated. Whether it's LGBT topics in the media, such as when reporting on LGBT characters, or the news reporting on LGBT people, "LGBT" is still the standard. And it's still the standard in literature sources I come across. It also has a rich and solid history, as the LGBT article is clear about, while all these alternatives do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We are not going to start renaming our LGBT articles and lists (such as LGBT history, LGBT community, LGBT rights by country or territory, and LGBT stereotypes) to include the "Q". Same goes for our LGBT categories. Moving this article to "LGBTQ" would make people think that we should since we should ideally be consistent across the project. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There has been a shift in the usage of LGBTQ, especially in colleges and at the tip of the politico-cultural vanguard, and from where I sit, it's gaining ground. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and by its nature follows general usage, it does not take the lead in causing or driving change. As of 2008, usage of LGBTQ in books was on the rise, but still lagged well behind LGBT, which seemed to be gaining ground even faster than LGBTQ in published sources. With attempts to include questioning, intersex, agender, allies, pangender, and perhaps others, many other initialisms are attested, and some at the bleeding edge of change might see LGBTQ as already hopelessly inadequate. It's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to report on any of these terms inside an article, given adequate reliable sources. Given sufficient notability, one might even be able to make a case for a separate LGBTQ article, but imho that would be highly likely to turn into a content fork as it covers the same ground, and thus is not a good idea. WP:COMMONNAME says ..some topics have multiple names, ... this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). By that standard, LGBT seems to be the leader for the time being. If and when it can be demonstrated that LGBTQ has clearly replaced it by the same standard, the article should be renamed. Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong: usage of the Q has tipped past "the vanguard" and into widespread general usage already. Sources plainly show this: The Globe and Mail, which is hardly a "vanguard" sort of place that jumps on early bandwagons ahead of the general public, uses LGBTQ. CBC News uses LGBTQ. The Daily Mail, probably the last place on earth that would ever embrace "radical political correctness" at all, uses LGBTQ. Rogers Sportsnet uses LGBTQ (and if sports channels, which have never been in the vanguard of anything LGBTQ-related, are routinely adding the Q, then the debate's beyond done.) Outsports: LGBTQ. National Public Radio, LGBTQ. Global News, LGBTQ. Forbes: LGBTQ. CTV News: LGBTQ. BBC News: LGBTQ. Billboard: LGBTQ. Vox: LGBTQ. Los Angeles Times: LGBTQ. Out: LGBTQ. NBC News: LGBTQ. The New York Times: LGBTQ. Chicago Tribune: LGBTQ. And on and so forth: these are gold standard sources for Wikipedia content at all times, such that if these sources have made the shift, the shift is done — these are not "radical" sources that make "innovative" linguistic choices in advance of common usage, but sources of record that reflect common usage. News organizations like CBC, BBC, NBC, The New York Times, NPR and Forbes are trailing indicators of a shift that has already happened, not sources that have anything whatsoever to do with the "tip of the politico-cultural vanguard". Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bearcat, all of those sources also use "LGBT." If you were pointing to sections of the sites, or statements from the sites, stating that they use "LGBTQ" only, that would be different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in the absence of any evidence that the 'Q' is now usually present. It is currently far from clear exactly how this will play itself out over the coming years. It is not a settled issue, but it is sometimes quite a contentious one, and Wikipedia should not be seen as taking a position on it. It may also be worth noting that even among those who prefer to tack the 'Q' on the end, there isn't consensus on what that letter stands for. We probably shouldn't be renaming articles—or whole groups of articles and categories, more like it—using an initialism that doesn't even have an agreed-upon meaning. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 01:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. LGBT is standard, common and most often used with the Q or the plus. CookieMonster755✉ 04:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That it's most often used with the Q, which is true, is somehow a reason for us to use it without the Q that is most often used? Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above and COMMONNAME, No need to move every time a letter is created or whatever. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Queer" is still an extremely controversial term within the LGBT community. Isseubnida (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT: Media

Hello, I've have read the wiki article on LGBT in general and I haven't noticed any heading or section on media portrayal in the article. I've seen it on other articles that are related to this article and I wish to add a media section this main article as I feel it's an important part of the community.Please tell me if you agree or disagree and why.16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)TaterTrotz1 (talk)

Love, Simon

Love, Simon was a revolutionary LGBT+ movie released March 16, 2018 that starred a (temporarily) closeted gay teenage boy. It was widely popular and was important media portrayal. 71.35.86.53 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Section "Representation in media"

I've removed the section Representation in media from the article, and moved it below. Note that this article is about a word, namely, the term LGBT, and is not about the LGBT community, LGBT people, LGBT history, books, or films, or any other related topic. The current section "Representation in media" contains nothing about the term LGBT itself, and so it does not belong in this article. It could perhaps be moved to one of the other, related articles.

section "Representation in media" from version 854336745 of LGBT

Representation in media Video games The video game industry has been progressive in its inclusion of LGBT characters. The 1986 game Moonmist includes a same-sex couple. This is recognized as the first representation of an LGBT character in a video game. In 1988, Nintendo introduced a transgender character known as Birdo in the game Super Mario Bros. 2. Music Music has played an important role in the LGBT community. In 1976, Tom Robinson Band recorded the song "Glad to Be Gay" for the gay pride rally in London. In 1984, the synth-pop group Bronski Beat released the song "Smalltown Boy", which highlighted the violence against gays. Modern artists such as Lady Gaga, Madonna and Macklemore & Ryan Lewis continue to advocate for the LGBT community with songs such as "Born This Way", "Vogue" and "Same Love". Film LGBT representation has gone through phases throughout the history of the film industry. From 1890 to 1930, homosexuality in films was usually presented as something to be ridiculed or laughed at by the audience. From 1930 to 1950 the film industry was accused for immorality by women's and religious groups. This led to any LGBT character only being defined by mannerisms and never explicitly talked about. 1960-1970 was a time where women's and gay rights movements were starting to rise. As this happened, gay and lesbian representation in film became more homophobic. This led to the film industry making gay characters more violent and dangerous, in such films as The Children's Hour (1961) and Vanishing Point (1971). In the 1990s, film started to include more LGBT characters. Films such as The Birdcage, Flawless, and In & Out are some examples. However, film is still hesitant about including LGBT characters. The film creators try to appeal to as many people as possible, and they fear that by adding too many LGBT characters or themes, they may lose some of that audience. References

There could be a section "Representation in media" in this article, as long as it deals with the article topic; examples might be, a documentary film about the development of the terms "Gay liberation", "LGB" and "GLB", and the addition of the "T" to make "LGBT". A musical with songs about the different terms, as they evolved. Music, films, television, and games regarding LGBT characters or history, however, are off-topic here. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sections Other variants and Alternative terms

The sections Other variants and Alternative terms basically cover the same ground. Either some logically coherent separation should be identified, or they should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the recent changes to include LGBTQ were on the right track, but the sourcing wasn't correct, so they've been reverted per the Verifiability guideline. Also, major changes like that, including one which affected the lead sentence need to be carefully sourced, and in preference, discussed on the talk page first. I'm in agreement for 'Q' inclusion, but not by blunt force, or purely as a matter of personal opinion; it needs to be done right. As it is, WP:BRD applies, so we're back here anyway, as it should be. Mathglot (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You were obviously right to revert the editor. And as seen at Talk:LGBT/Archive 2#Requested move 14 February 2018 (a debate that got a mention in this gaystarnews.com source), we recently had a discussion about how common the Q is. The Q is still not the standard, and can either mean "queer" or "questioning." The aforementioned editor promotes the Q to stand for "questioning," and has been disruptive in that regard.

As for "variants" vs. "alternative terms," they are not the same thing. "LGBTQ" is a variant of "LGBT," for example, while "gender and sexual/sexuality minorities (GSM)" or "men who have sex with men (MSM)" is not a variant of "LGBT." Any redundancy in the sections should be cut, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

History of Term

The history section does not seem to actually cover much history of the term. At the time of this writing the section was structured thusly:

1. Old fashioned terms for homosexuals
2. Some lesbians didn't like the term lesbian others were fine with it
3. Not all people lumped into LGBTQ are pleased about that.
4. Activists arbitrated the terminology.

Since I imagine the label didn't simply appear out of nowhere I would recommend that either:

• Some of the above information is unnecessary for the history, and so belongs in a different section or article. In particular those notes specific to feminists and lesbians.

or

• The history in Queer, Transgendered, Bisexual and the opinions of Gay men, from the 1950s to present seem conspicuously absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Tag bombing the lead

Ethanpet113, regarding this and this, why do you think your wording changes and WP:Tag bombing are helpful? The lead is meant to summarize. And you clearly apply the WP:Weasel wording guideline more strictly than it should be applied (like I indicated on your talk page). Furthermore, per WP:CITELEAD, the lead can forgo citations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Understood, I will remove the offending tags from the lea, but the rest of the edit will remain intact. Ethanpet113 (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethanpet113, regarding your tags, I'll further explain what I meant. For "activists" you added "[who?]." Even if we have specific names, rather than just "LGBT activists," why are these names something that should be in the lead? Again, the lead is for summarizing. Template:Who states, in part, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague." Non-notable names often are not necessary for inclusion, and that is even more so the case for the lead. For "The initialism LGBT is intended" part, you added "[by whom?]." But that it's intended to "emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures" is a simple statement of fact. In this case, "by whom" applies to the general public. For "The initialism has become adopted into the mainstream," you added a "when" hidden note. We don't need the exact year in the lead, but I also don't think there is an exact year for that statement.

Anyway, I appreciate you removing the tags from the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22:I was unaware that wikipedia permitted the attribution in the lead to be weak. Since it summarised statements later in the article which were unsourced, and weasley, I thought that would have been reasonable.

I apologize and will try to remember that in the future.

Regarding justification of modifications, please see below.

Weaselyness

Please read the following excerpts for context regarding the subsequent arguments:

Although the LGBT community has seen much controversy regarding universal acceptance of different member groups (bisexual and transgender individuals, in particular, have sometimes been marginalized by the larger LGBT community), the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion.[4][19][...]

The order of the letters has not been standardized; in addition to the variations between the positions of the initial "L" or "G", the mentioned, less common letters, if used, may appear in almost any order.[19] Longer initialisms based on LGBT are sometimes referred to as "alphabet soup".[36][37]

The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) has also resulted, although such initialisms are sometimes criticized for being confusing and leaving some people out, as well as issues of placement of the letters within the new title.[36] However, adding the term "allies" to the initialism has sparked controversy,[69] with some seeing the inclusion of "ally" in place of "asexual" as a form of asexual erasure.[70] There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer).[71]

The initialisms LGBT or GLBT are not agreed to by everyone that they encompass.[73] For example, some argue that transgender and transsexual causes are not the same as that of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people.[74] This argument centers on the idea that transgenderism and transsexuality have to do with gender identity, or a person's understanding of being or not being a man or a woman irrespective of their sexual orientation.

A belief in "lesbian & gay separatism" (not to be confused with the related "lesbian separatism"), holds that lesbians and gay men form (or should form) a community distinct and separate from other groups normally included in the LGBTQ sphere.[76]

A belief in "lesbian & gay separatism" (not to be confused with the related "lesbian separatism"), holds that lesbians and gay men form (or should form) a community distinct and separate from other groups normally included in the LGBTQ sphere.[76] While not always appearing of sufficient number or organization to be called a movement, separatists are a significant, vocal, and active element within many parts of the LGBT community.[77][76][78] In some cases separatists will deny the existence or right to equality of bisexual orientations and of transsexuality,[77] sometimes leading public biphobia and transphobia.[77][76] In contrasts to separatists, Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage! argues that to separate the transgender movement from the LGB would be "political madness", stating that:

Queers are, like transgender people, gender deviant. We don't conform to traditional heterosexist assumptions of male and female behaviour, in that we have sexual and emotional relationships with the same sex. We should celebrate our discordance with mainstream straight norms.[...] [79]

The portrayal of an all-encompassing "LGBT community" or "LGB community" is also disliked by some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.[80][81] Some do not subscribe to or approve of the political and social solidarity, and visibility and human rights campaigning that normally goes with it including gay pride marches and events.[80][81] Some of them believe that grouping together people with non-heterosexual orientations perpetuates the myth that being gay/lesbian/bi/asexual/pansexual/etc. makes a person deficiently different from other people.[80] These people are often less visible compared to more mainstream gay or LGBT activists.[80][81] Since this faction is difficult to distinguish from the heterosexual majority, it is common for people to assume all LGBT people support LGBT liberation and the visibility of LGBT people in society, including the right to live one's life in a different way from the majority.[80][81][82]

"LGBT activists" unsourced

The term "LGBT activists", is weasley because it states without attribution that LGBT activists are homogenous, and there is consensus, which among other things contradicts the statements in the later part of the history and variants sections.

Thus the there is no consensus among the general public or activists regarding LGBTQ+ as opposed to:

• GL(Gay and lesbian): Simple original terminology, but not inclusive
• GLB: Inclusive of bisexuals
• LGB: Inclusive of bisexuals and influenced by feminists to give L precedence
• GLBT: Sometimes used in place of LGBT, includes trans people ( there is mention in the article(history) that some believe trans issues are not the same as GLB issues, but as all 4 groups were sexually marginalized, they were included to produce a louder political voice?)
• LGBT:feminist and inclusive but not too long)
• LGBTQ+: As more letters are added there is some criticism is growing beyond a point where it is pragmatic.

Intended to(encyclopedic)

"The initialism LGBT is intended" part, you added "[by whom?]." But that it's intended to "emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures".

This is unsourced, and biased; an encyclopedia is collection of historic reference, it cannot infer intent.

1. This statement is made unsourced in the lead and is not made sourced within the body of the article.
2. This is a statement of intent WP:Tone, this is a pretty obvious appeal to emotion it has no place in an encyclopedic article, unless enough people can be quoted as saying it and there is no counterpoint.
3. There is specific mention that the acronym including gay men and trnas people has created a conflict among gay-lesbian separatist and those believing that trans/queer/genderqueer issues are seperate.
4. WP:Attribution wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if it can be substantiated by many sources that this is the case and there is no significant criticism of the matter only then it may belong in the lead.

When?

Later in the article it is mentioned that the term's adoption happened around the end of the 80s, I left a note there as historic information on etymology usually has dates associated. Since this ia an article on a n acronym I figured etymologically related data would be useful. Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethanpet113, the text in the lead simply states "activists." At least "LGBT activists" is clearer. If we state "LGBT activists," it does not mean "all LGBT activists," any more than stating "health professionals" in our medical articles means "all health professionals," or "critics" in our film articles means "all critics." It is not always the case that we can give specific names; an example of this is when referring to the general public when we state "some people." If the sources don't give specific names, then we can't either. And there is the issue of adding a list of names, including non-notable names, which can make text worse. All of this is why I pointed you to what Template:Who states. Furthermore, specific names can make it seem like only those people feel that way, when it turns out that many or most people, or many or most people in that group, do; this creates a WP:In-text attribution violation because it's misleading. If it is necessary to give specific names, one could state "LGBT activists such as [so and so]." But again, specific names should not be included if it's going to present a majority view as a view that only a few people hold. An editor might also add "LGBT activists" instead of "some LGBT activists" because the latter is likelier to earn the text a Template:Who tag.

I'm not sure what you mean about homogeneous.

As for "Thus the there is no consensus among the general public or activists regarding LGBTQ+ as opposed to," I'm not sure what you are getting at regarding the variants, but "LGBT" is the standard, which we discussed previously on this stalk page (see above). That standard doesn't mean that the initialism excludes people who are labeled "questioning"...simply because the Q is missing. The Q, just like other extra letters, are emphasizing the broadness of the initialism. A number of reliable sources are clear that "LGBT" is a broad umbrella. Regarding "the initialism LGBT is intended to" aspect, it is quite clear from the lead and sourcing in the article that "LGBT" also commonly refers to people who fall under "questioning" as well, or to all non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people. The text is easy enough to reword, or it can be removed as redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

change the part in "Other variants" where it includes the term "ally" in the LGBTQIA+ community, in the second paragraph. Allies are NOT within the community. A does not stand for Ally, as A stands for Asexual, Agender, or Aromantic. Roman0718170 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Variants:

Should their be both a Variants and Other Variants section in this article? I suggest moving all to Variants and remove the Other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrphilip (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

We only need one variants section. The "Other variants" section is simply a subsection of it. Also see #Sections Other variants and Alternative terms above. And make sure to source your content. Your Canada addition, which I moved, is unsourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

I hope to receive edit access because I am actually a trans male. I hope to help in reviewing any false edits. LGBTNova (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: The user making the request immediately afterwards vandalized LGBT rights in the United States. Largoplazo (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail in history

@EvergreenFir: The history of the term section currently covers details not necessary to establish context for the history of the term. The following statements while true have nothing to do with its etymology, and do not provide any necessary context for the nearby statements:

In response to years of lobbying from users and LGBT groups to eliminate discrimination, the online social networking service Facebook, in February 2014, widened its choice of gender variants for users.[24][25][26]

A dispute as to whether the primary focus of their political aims should be feminism or gay rights led to the dissolution of some lesbian organizations, including the Daughters of Bilitis, which disbanded in 1970 following disputes over which goal should take precedence.[16]

It's not history if it's not established

The following statement In 2016, GLAAD's Media Reference Guide states that LGBTQ is the preferred initialism, being more inclusive of younger members of the communities who embrace queer as a self-descriptor.[27] However, some people consider queer to be a derogatory term originating in hate speech and reject it, especially among older members of the community.[28] Belongs in the variant sections. That this is the "preferred initialism" is the opinion of a single organization and it is directly contradicted by the variants section and lead, which demonstrate that there is a lack in consensus. If this is actually the preferred initialism by preferred consensus then the name of this article should change. For this reason I do not believe it is yet "history" only a "variant".Ethanpet113 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT Terminology in "Canada"

@EvergreenFir:The term LGBTQ2+ used in Canada though <anecdote>not usually in any setting unless a bureaucrat, politician or civil servant is involved. Additionally though you can run a quick google search and see that some LGBT organizations (and also the city of Vancouver) use this initialism, there are many others in the country that do not. Private organizations and businesses servicing GLBT individuals in the Canada generally stick with the 4 letter because it's less bloated.</anecdote> e.g [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

So maybe I just take issue with the wording, but it should say "some organizations use that initialism", though I would insist that the majority do not. Ethanpet113 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind added info about it's somewhat limited use by governments. But that the government uses it seems good enough for me to have it included. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

remove ally from the acronym. it is not part of the acronym. it is another word for straight. get rekt. ur wrong and u suck. chaing it now Kendra 3303 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Pink News as source

A reference to Pink News about the LBTQ alphabet soup evolution was added in this edit, which I reverted. The article by Bea Mitchell, aside from the folksy attitude, actually gets things pretty right. The problem is that Pink News is not a reliable source, imho. Afaict, this has only been raised once at RSN, and it was in 2009 in this Archive 47 discussion. Per WP:V, it's not enough that the article is accurate, it has to be in a reliable source as well. Perhaps it's time for another section at RSN, but I thought I'd raise it here first, to test the waters. Thanks to SeminarianJohn (talk · contribs) for the attempt to improve the article by adding this reference. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What are the main reasons you feel that Pink News are or are not a RS? It seems the main argument from that past discussion is since it has a pro-LGBT editorial position it is necessarily biassed and not RS. Not sure that argument holds water, many RS like The Guardian or The Nation have certain editorial positions. WP:V says sources are questionable if its views are widely considered by other RS to be extremist or promotional. I don't think that's the case here. Have no strong opinion yet on other aspects of WP:V being met or not. Rab V (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also be interesting in hearing why PinkNews should not be considered reliable. I observe that it is currently cited by about ~1200 articles (based on a search for insource:"PinkNews"; compare e.g. insource:"smithsonianmag" being cited by ~3000 articles or Ireland's national news insource:"rte.ie" being cited by ~9100 articles, to pick two other relatively smaller sources off the top of my head), which suggests it is de facto accepted for at least some purposes now and the previous "discussion", which was ten years ago(!) and involved only three(!) editors (of whom one has been indefinitely blocked since 2011), no longer holds.
My understanding is that if a site has a track record of accuracy/fact-checking, a (relatively mainstream, non-fringe) editorial stance would not currently be considered totally disqualifying (as Rab V notes, other accepted RS have editorial stances and biases), though it should be taken into account when deciding whether the source is reliable for any particular statement or topic. A lot hinges on the "if", of course. (I recall reading one article in PinkNews which made an exceptional claim—about the creator of Rocky Horror—that I couldn't find in any other RS, but I haven't read or studied the site often enough to know if that was a rare error like any news site might make, or indicative of a problem.)
In this case it was not being used to add any or cite any content that doesn't already have other citations, so we could just omit it here and sidestep the matter... -sche (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that. Thank you for creating a talk space so we can just keep it 'on file' as it were in case we find something like it that can be more reliable. I totally agree on that. I only added it because the books cited are harder to access, but, again, totally understand. Thank you for your kind words btw!SeminarianJohn (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: I wouldn't use number of sourced uses at Wikipedia as any kind of support, I'm sure use of Daily Mail was pretty high, right up until they lost their RS status. But I agree with you that it is de facto accepted, and that a long-ago conversation doesn't carry much weight now. Media Bias/Fact Check says this, rating PinkNews's bias as "left" and the fact-checking level as "high". They seem to have run-ins with the lesbian community from time to time. Besides being a news and opinion outlet, PinkNews also takes an activist stance on LGBT-related issues, something we would find disturbing from a respected print publication. This isn't a lot of data, but maybe they're a reliable source with a left bias, and male bias? I think I agree with the comment about using it along with other sources, where possible. If they were the only source for some assertion, we could always attribute it to them in line, rather than making it in Wikipedia's voice. Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

AfterEllen criticizes both PinkNews and Autostraddle for not being trans-exclusionary the way AfterEllen is; I wouldn't attach much weight to such an obviously fringe-POV criticism, when determining reliability (or at the very least, it is not evidence of criticism from 'the lesbian community', but only disfavour among trans-exclusionary people). -sche (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

AfterEllen's critisism is not remotly valid in determining PinkNews reliability since it's completly based on conflicts of personal opinions and not on if PinkNews has an established editorial staff.★Trekker (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

change ally in other variations acronym LGBTTQQIAAP to aromantic HeckithYouith (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Roadguy2 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding The letter Q+ to this article's title

I am proposing the editing of the title of this article to be more inclusive to the evolution of the LGBT(+) community. Many websites and persons use a variety of additions to LGBT. Below is a quote from the current article:

"The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures. It may be used to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender, instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. To recognize this inclusion, a popular variant adds the letter Q for those who identify as queer or are questioning their sexual identity; "LGBTQ" has been recorded since 1996. Those who add intersex people to LGBT groups or organizing use an extended initialism LGBTI. The two acronyms are sometimes combined to form the terms LGBTIQ or LGBT+ to encompass spectrums of sexuality and gender.[better source needed] "

Sources: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-isaacs/why-were-adding-the-q_b_8535208.html https://www.equalityfederation.org https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LGBTQ

I think it would be a good idea to at least edit the title from LGBT to either LGBT+ or LGBTQ+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNocterum (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@DNocterum: Thanks for your suggestion. This has recently been discussed at great length, and rejected for the time being. It may well be adopted in time, but it’s too soon at this point. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage of "LGBTIQ" acronym dubious

The article cited doesn't mention "LGBTIQ" and I've never heard or seen it written that way before. There is some debate over whether intersex people are inherently LGBT, and queer is still seen as a slur by some in the community, but when the two are used together the letter 'Q' comes before 'I' - sometimes two 'Q's are used, but more often than not the extended acronym is simply "LGBTQIA+".

https://now.org/blog/now-updates-acronym-lgbtqia/

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/06/how-has-the-lgbt-acronym-evolved/

Gangweedersriseup (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A stands for Asexual/Aromantic, not for Ally

Can we please drop the Ally part in the QUILTBAG description? Yes, of course it is important to recognize that there are Allies out there, but let's face it: Allies don't face discrimination, and they are not actually part of the LGBTQ+ community. They are important, of course, but they are not technically LGBTQ+. Having the A for Asexual/Aromantic (the latter not being mentioned at all :/ ) shared with Allies is kinda an afront to ace/aro erasure which happens all around the places, as they are quite commonly overlooked and not being seen as part of the community. And the linked sources for having the A stand for ace + ally aren't really proper publications, frankly spoken. That point of looking at it isn't shared within the community.

Rhonda D'Vine (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but on Wikipedia, we document viewpoints weighed in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Both versions of LGBTQIA with "Ally" and "Asexual" are used in reliable sources, so our article should ideally state that both are used. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

change "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual" to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, axis, pansexual" Npc-cheeks (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not in the cited source, and I've not heard the word "axis" used in this context before. Could you point to some reliable sources using "axis"? – Þjarkur (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Drop the T

Pursuant to the AfD of Drop the T linked at the top of this page, I merged the content from that page, in slightly condensed form, into this page and left that page as a redirect. If there are e.g. WP:WEIGHT or sourcing concerns please feel free to move the content to this talk page while discussing it. If there are other steps which need to be taken, such as updating the AfD template at the top of this page, please let me know (what template is supposed to be used?) or pitch in and take them. :) -sche (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Counter-acronym

A contrived equivalence LGBTQ="Liberty, Guns, Bible, Trump, and BBQ" seems to be gaining some traction among U.S. right-wingers in 2019.[7],[8]
By the way, long ago in the 1990s the BDSM community dealt with the problem of the acronym "BDSM" perhaps not covering all possible relevant variations by coining the humorous pseudo-acronym "BDSMNOP", where MNOP is from the alphabet song... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha, about the second one! I'm a little sad I can't find enough uses in the types of "durably archived" places Wiktionary requires to add it as an entry there. (Could always add it to the list of protologisms, I suppose.) -sche (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Words as words in lead

Hiplibrarianship, can you give an explanation for this edit of yours? Your edit summary reads, "italics not applicable here", but in fact, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, it is indeed appropriate. If you have a guideline or policy-based reason for your edit, please share it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As cited in that policy, the Use–mention distinction applies, and I believe neither this article's title nor the first three instances of the initialism qualify. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 05:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hiplibrarianship:, Use–mention does apply, but in the opposite sense you believe. All the occurrences of LGBT in the lead are mentions, just like, 'cheese' is derived from Old french. However, it looks like there's an exception for the first occurrence of a "term [that is] strictly synonymous with the subject of the article (i.e. the likely target of a redirect)" so by my reading, the first two initialisms in the lead ('LGBT' and 'GLBT') should in fact, not be italicized, just like you said. The third one, 'LGB', is not "strictly synonymous", so it sounds like it should be; will seek clarification about it at that Talk page.

Subsequent occurrences of those terms, however, would not be covered further down in the article, however, so that for example, in the third paragraph of the lead we would have to change that to: "The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize..." because it isn't the first occurrence. Likewise, for all further mentions of LGBT (and the other terms) throughout the article. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's my whole take on this per MOS:BOLD and MOS:WAW, and I'll invite some MOS folks here to weigh in on this:

1. All uses (in the Use–mention sense) of the word 'LGBT' throughout the article, as well as of related terms in the article should be in standard font and weight
2. First occurrence in the article of terms not synomous with 'LGBT' that are redirects should be BOLD, including:
   • LGBTI, LGBTIQ, LGBT+, LGBTQQ, LGBTIQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTTQQIAAP, LGBTIQA+, LGBTQ2, LGBTQ+, LGBT2Q+, LGBTTIQQ2SA (and if they are also mentions which most are, they should be BOLD + ITALIC)
3. All mentions should be italicized, with some exceptions:
   1. 'GLBT' in the first sentence is strictly synonymous with the subject of the article as well as the target of a redirect, thus not italicized (but still bolded per Article title terms) thus BOLD only
   2. The first occurrence of 'LGB&T' (strictly synonmous; target of redirect) thus BOLD only
   3. Not clear what to do with 'LGBTQ' (but that's not a MOS problem); most would say it is not synonymous, in that case BOLD + ITALIC
4. 'LGB' in the second sentence of the article is a tricky case; I make it as BOLD + ITALIC, thus:
   • It's a first occurrence of a redirect term, so BOLD
   • It's mentioned, so ITALICS
   • Two styles can be used at once for distinct purposes, so BOLD + ITALIC
   • It's not synonymous with the subject (it excludes the 'T'), so bold-instead-of-italics does not apply, here
   • Conclusion: BOLD + ITALIC

That's pretty much it. Let's see what the MOS gnomes have to say about it. To make it a bit easier to slog through, I've followed the recommendation at MOS:WAW and added {{dfn}} templates to first occurrences of terms; there are fourteen of them if I didn't miss any. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Listed at WT:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Listed at WT:WPMOS. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am only kinda a MoS gnome, but I think Mathglot's understanding is correct. -sche (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Having some doubts about bolding for the list in bullet 2 above, due to the "unhelpful" caveat in the last sentence of Article title terms, but I actually think bolding will still be helpful in this case, to help viewers understand why they ended up at a subsection of the article, so I'm still inclined to go with #2 as stated. But other opinions would be nice. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

remove the word "ally" from QUILTBAG acronym description because it does not and never will stand for ally it only stands for asexual 2601:407:C302:6138:D5A5:BD53:7897:5467 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The source in the article specifically says "A for asexual and ally". NiciVampireHeart 23:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2019

In the section 'Transgender inclusion', change 'The gender identity "transgender" has been recategorized' to 'The term "transgender" has been recategorized'. 'Transgender' is not a gender identity. For comparison, see the first line of the article on the term 'transgender': 'Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.' Cyrridven (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

there is no double A in lgbtq+ there is no ally and the A also stands for aromatic and asexual Neveryouwish (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done What, specifically, are you asking to be changed? I initially thought it might be LGBTTQQIAAP, but that is supported by a cite of this source. Also, please cite a source supporting your requested change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Another possible alternative

An elegant method I have been seeing on occasion that will stay put and not fragment as it gets longer is the capitalised term The Community, when the context is clear. Particularly it emphasises solidarity and is simple to expand to things like "The Community and allies" "The Community and fellow travellers" and so on . . .

Also, as I am sure everyone editing the article so far knows, sometimes there is the need in a sentence to reference the LG, or LG&B, or LGB&T and others where it is LGBT&Q, LGBTQ+ LGBTQ*, LGB[A-Z]* or what have you, those also plus I, A, another Q or a ?, P for Pansexual, P for Progressive Heterosexual, another P for Polyamorist, and some of the others mentioned, which in correspondence and so forth I just write it out completely as it is relevant to the case so that no one is excluded or the case is made unclear by including groups which are not in a certain case, like for example, the marriage issue in the United States and elsewhere has so far been LG&B, whereas for example a lot of allies already could get married, and polyamorists in some cases are working on marriage rights of another type, and it affects the T, Q and I folks in various ways too.

Another term I remember which has been around a bit longer is "Those Who Colour Outside The Lines" you know, something pretty admirable that most or all of the above do in many ways and make society better by so doing . . . S3819 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A simple (if slightly ironic) term widely used by disinterested observers in Australia is "the alphabet people". Bjenks (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

Background: The Gay Rights Movement, referencing post Stonewall, developed separately from the Radical Lesbian Feminism (2nd to 3rd wave) movement. While the article includes information on both movements, "Gay Rights" morphed to "Gay and Lesbian Rights" under a wider encompassing. The article is unfortunately silent on when/how Lesbian became the first word in the acronym of LGBT, namely: The AIDS Epidemic.

Request for changes: Previous to entry "From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States." Please include that the cause of the name change, and ordering had to do with the AIDS epidemic, as experienced by the then, Gay Community. Many lesbians stepped up during this time, caring for terminal AIDS patients, because "...no one else is going to do it".

"Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places the "L" (for "lesbian") first." The citation for this line dates from 2004. However, material from 5 years prior, 1999, indicates an alternative narrative for why the term is LGBT, not GLBT. GLBT? LGBT? LGBTQIA+? What's in a Name? citing John-Manuel Andriote, author of Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America (Chicago 1999).

The two terms are NOT identical in meaning, nor is LGBT of a more feminist inclination. Lesbian lists first in the acronym due to the solidarity expressed to Lesbians caring for dying Gays.--68.36.164.95 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is news to me, and afaik the terms were, and to a lesser extent, still are, used interchangeably, and mean exactly the same thing. Your "andymatic" link is a personal, self-published blog, summarizing or copying information from a Reddit thread. The article on the Medium open publishing platform is also personal observation and opinion, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't mean that the information in either of these two sources is false, but neither is it reliably sourced, and it cannot be used on Wikipedia.

I'll leave this request open for a bit, and message you on your User talk page. If you are able to list below several citations to reliable sources that attest to the truth of what you say (please read WP:RS to see what that means, in Wiki-speak), then we can talk about adding the material. But not before. If you haven't responded by, say, 4 September, then this request should be closed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

While I have a San Francisco-centric view, I trace the morphing of the collective term as follows Gay -> Gay and Lesbian -> Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (LGB) -> LGBT.

Citation reference on LGB: Wikipedia, LGBT_culture_in_San_Francisco Unsurprisingly listed under 1980s and 1990s - the AIDS crisis and response with first use of the term "mid to late 1980s".

Mathglot, go ahead and close the request for the present. I don't have an immediate reputable source. As well, San Francisco represents only one of the LGBT cultural centers, more research would be needed in documenting when the choice of listing changed, and its presence at a national or global level.

For a future researcher, the names Maggie Rubenstein, and Susan Stryker appear to be linked (among others) to the inclusion of "Bisexual" and "Transgender" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.164.95 (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As the development of the LGBTQ+ community, the are more terms have emerged. Do you think we should include and explain these terms as well? such as binary, pansexual, sapiosexual, and etc. For example, how they are related to LGBTQ+ community.WILL.I.AMMJ (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WILL.I.AMMJ, Perhaps these terms should be linked to directly from the article itself, so as not to have to duplicate the work on those articles themselves? FULBERT (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Italics?

Why is LGBT in italics on this page?★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Late reply, but LGBT is only italicized when referring to the initialism itself, as opposed to the LGBT community or LGBT rights. (See MOS:WORDSASWORDS.) —Will^(B) 16:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

homosexual, now carries negative connotations

I cannot find any reference to this in the source given, GLAAD.
Can someone find a valid source for this? --Zaurus (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaurus: it's under the Glossary > AP, Reuters, NYT Styles. Here's the direct link: https://www.glaad.org/reference/style EvergreenFir (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, It says nothing about "negative connotations". Says homosexual is a clinical word, but that gay should be used in most situations. --Zaurus (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It says,

..."homosexual" – a word whose clinical history and pejorative connotations are routinely exploited by anti-LGBTQ extremists to suggest that people attracted to the same sex are somehow diseased or psychologically and emotionally disordered.

I think it's fair to summarize that as "negative connotation". EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: it's not under the Glossary > NYT Styles. I'm sure GLAAD is a reputable source.

Let's just update the source to GLAAD. --Zaurus (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Works for me! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Zaurus, the section should explain why it carries negative connotations, like the Gay article explains. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The reference comes from the Washington Post, so this only supports the statement "The first widely used term, homosexual, now carries negative connotations in the United States". This point needs clarifying, or further references are needed. 31.52.161.3 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And another thing - this statement "Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage! ". Reading his bio suggests that he is not part of the group now, being full time in some other post. 31.52.161.3 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, OutRage! no longer exists. 31.52.161.3 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs "Criticism of LGBT" article

Hello! I'm Adam from Poland. I'm not a native speaker, so my english isn't as good to write articles on english Wikipedia, but I have a suggestion. LGBT on whole Wikipedia probably has only one small paragraph with criticism of LGBT culture, not this social movement. Sadly - everything important on Wikipedia has huge articles with criticism. Moreover, there's also "LGBT rights opposition". Main sense of this article is: lack of sympathy to LGBT is caused by homophobia and prejudice.

I think Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and free from social pressures. LGBT, like everything, has big disadvanteges. People related with LGBT make bad things, like people related with for example christianity do also. But LGBT has not any critical word on Wikipedia. That have to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.251.85 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the term Genderfuck appropriate?

There are far less 'colorful' monikers for the people that identify this way. The article that this word links to is "Gender bender". Could we replace this off-color term with something less offensive?155.95.98.53 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that is the actual term. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

I would like to propose the addition of an asexuality section to coincide with the Intersex and Transgender inclusion sections as I think it is underrepresented.

Asexual Inclusion People who identify as asexual confront the assumption that sexuality and identity go hand in hand. Asexuality is understood to be someone who lacks sexual interest or sexual attraction.These individuals are not necessarily aromantic, which would indicate that they don't experience romantic attraction. They belong to the LGBTQIA community because they can relate to marginalized sexualities in their experiences. Asexuality has been long ignored and is underrepresented because of its inherent lack of behavior and desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison.shanley001 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the places and most of the time asexuals weren't a persecuted category. So why do they belong among people who have been historically persecuted? Adding an A to LGBT usually means aromantics, not asexuals. Yes, I know that transsexuals are new, but they are much easier to spot than gays and lesbians, therefore prone to more aggression from others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Oogieboogieman12321 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can i edit

There is a missing genre in the lgbtq+ community and i would to edit the official page to add my personal genre Oogieboogieman12321 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oogieboogieman12321: Anybody can make an edit on Wikipedia. Just make sure it follows the editing policy! :) Golem08 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Remove ally from the list, because ally's are not an actuall part of the lgbtiq+ community. Wackkopoop (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In whose opinion (besides your's) are they not part of LGBT? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting more inclusive page name for this and related pages

This seems like enough of a change that I think it should be discussed before being done, but the four letters in the current title don't represent everyone in the community. For example, I identify with this community as aromantic and genderqueer, but don't identify as L, G, or B since I don't feel attracted to my own biological sex and don't consider myself T since I don't feel comfortable identifying as the opposite of the gender I was assigned at birth either. I do consider myself queer so I would feel more included by the term LGBTQ, LGBT+, or LGBTQ+. Green Dragon Pride (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving this article and those with "LGBT" in the title requires adhering to the WP:Common name policy. This title has been discussed before: Talk:LGBT/Archive 2#Requested move 14 February 2018. That was just two years ago. But the title can be reassessed via tools like Google Trends. Whatever the case, it would not be good to move this article to "LGBTQ" without moving all of the other "LGBT" titles to that as well. Same goes for the LGBT categories. We should be consistent. And "LGBTQ" is significantly more common than "LGBT+." Still, the article already includes the significant alternative terms in the lead per WP:Alternative title and discusses alternative terms lower. And "LGBTQ," for example, clearly redirects to this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked with Google Trends, and LGBTQ is getting closer to the same search rate and has been more searched than LGBT this month. I would support moving it based on that and the fact that related identities not covered by the first 4 letters are getting more press but think it's best to have a discussion first. Green Dragon Pride (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Green Dragon Pride: Google Trends data is completely irrelevant for determining what the title should be, as it is based on user data, not reliable sources, as Wikipedia policies and guidelines require. You are a new user (Welcome!) and you should learn about Wikipedia's policies, and the previous history (see the Archives) about this question, which has been raised many times before. The article might be retitled at some point, but it needs to be because of policy-based arguments, not just because of your own, personal feelings about it, otherwise Wikipedia would be a free-for-all that would rapidly descend into chaos. Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought up Google Trends data because, as you know, it's commonly used as one tool for assessing whether or not an article should be moved. Experienced editors refer to it all the time, and that includes the recent move request at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery. Yes, it has flaws. Care should be taken with it, as many experienced editors know. Still often better than the search engine test in my eyes. I mean, when it comes to arguing whether an article should be moved. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Need to change the line "https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/nyregion/stonewall-inn-named-national-monument-a-first-for-gay-rights-movement.htmltitle=Why New York" to "https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/nyregion/stonewall-inn-named-national-monument-a-first-for-gay-rights-movement.html Wiki-class19 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done That actually was introduced in a recent edit which broke referencing in the lead, and also left the url different from the title, publisher, and author. Fixed now. Mathglot (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

OK- I've never heard that not referencing the lede is the standard, but can play along with that. But otherwise the status quo looks far more encyclopedic with the header, no reason to blanket revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castncoot (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not a standard, and there is no reason you cannot add references to the lead if there is information likely to require it; see MOS:CITELEAD. This semi-protected edit was asking for a fix because of a broken reference. I would have restored the reference for you, if I knew which source you wanted to add, but since the title, publisher, author, and url did not agree with each other, there was no way of knowing what source you meant to use. At some point, there's such a thing as too many references, but if you think there's some material in the lead that requires referencing and isn't already, go ahead and add your source back with a properly formatted reference, and there should be no problem. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

The second A in LGBTTQQIAAP does not stand for ally, it stands for aromantic. Someone who does not experience romantic feeling but some aromantic people experience sexual attraction. 2600:1013:B020:B378:C1C2:7C30:23EA:B80A (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQ+

My local newspaper is using this term and I assume it's just a variation of the others already in use in the article, but I wanted to make sure. I also wanted to make sure it is in the article somewhere. And no, Canada doesn't count since I am in the United States.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as the article notes, it's a variation. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How do we present it in the Wikipedia article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So, wait, what is wrong with the way it's presented? LGBTQ and LGBT+ are both discussed. The specific combo "LGBTQ+" is only mentioned in a paragraph about Canada, but the discussion of the meanings of "Q" and "+" make it clear what those mean. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

For comparison, the GLAAD Media Reference Guide (10th edition, 2016) recommends LGBTQ, while the Library of Congress now uses LGBTQ+ in topical guides. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 22:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the title be changed?

What should the title of this page be?

1. LGBT, no change
2. LGBTQ
3. LGBTQ+
4. LGBT+

Hopefully we can reach a consensus, thanks! ~ HAL333 04:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• What? Start a WP:Requested moves discussion if you want it moved. And per the previous discussions, I don't see why the title shouldn't remain "LGBT." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is a failure to engage in WP:RFCBEFORE, and is also the wrong process as Flyer22 Frozen said; i.e. it would be a WP:RM. So, I ask for a procedural close. For the record, I support Option 1 for the reasons given at this discussion at WT:LGBT. (While my methodology there was flawed, Mathglot corrected me and noted that my conclusion was right anyway.) Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural close – per Crossroads. Also, HAL333, the policy governing names of articles is at WP:AT, and all articles should adhere to this policy. Discussions of article titles should be based on your interpretation of this and any other relevant policy. You gave no reason for your Rfc question above; it almost sounds like it's a popularity contest, and we're gonna count up the votes at the end, and whatever title wins, that's the new title. But in fact, it does not work that way. We could get 99 votes for QUILTBAG (yes, it's a real choice) based on individual preference, and four sound, policy-based arguments for LGBTTQQIAAP, and then in theory, the latter would be the new name for the article. So, if and when you bring this up again as a move request per WP:RM#CM, please start off with why you think there should be a change in the first place; i.e., 1. Why is the current name wrong; and 2. what is your preferred term, and what Wikipedia policies or guidelines support your choice? If you really have no preference and you're just curious, then that's kind of a waste of a lot of editor time, so please don't do that; only open this if you really have a preference, and can back it up with policy. If you need help formulating your arguments, any of the responders so far can help you with links to policies, do's and don'ts, and so on. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it for now. If LGBTQ becomes the dominant initialism we can switch over, as long as they are discussed in the lead I think it’s fine for now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

..initially LGB,

Use the initial one. The later LGBT and LGBTQ simply repeats gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99x (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No they don't. That claim is a talking point of various transphobic groups who hide behind weasel words like "gender critical" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.56.14 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

    How is it 'weasel words' for people who are critical of gender ideology and the concept of gender to call themselves 'gender critical'?2407:7000:9BC3:C800:F5B2:6B23:9C3A:CE76 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Movement advanced project, and other lead issues

The mention of the "LGBT Movement Advancement Project" in the lead, footnoted or not, seems out of bounds, as it's not a summary of anything in the body; it's unique to the lead. Even if it deserves a mention in the body of the article (I have no opinion on that) it seems WP:UNDUE to say anything about it in the LEAD, unless we could find several sources that all discussed the LMAP in connection with its influence on the term itself.

There may be other issues with the lead that need attention as well. Hiplibrarianship recently made made some changes to the lead, which I reverted, not because of any strong objection (although I'd hope for smaller, incremental changes) but because it's a pretty big (1kb) change, it's in the WP:LEAD (so how does it stack up to summary and "follow" considerations), and because the whole topic area is an Arb-declared controversial one. Since it was your initiative, Hip, do you want to take the lead here? Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm admittedly muddled that Mathglot would revert changes without actually objecting to them. With all due respect to other contributors, the lede section needs help. I sincerely did not consider any of my changes to be controversial, hence the lack of a talk-page entry. (The bit about the Movement Advancement Project is case in point: why/how did that garner lede treatment to begin with? Yet now its removal requires justification?!) Furthermore, my recent changes replaced unsourced claims (e.g., "Activists believed...") with comparatively anodyne statements easily supported by the body of the article. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 23:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hiplibrarianship:, sorry about the muddle. There's a (maybe too) subtle distinction here: it's true I haven't (yet?) objected to any of it, but my point was, that the revert was due to lack of discussion on a significant LEAD change. I would probably do the same thing if Mathglot-prime inserted the exact verbiage I had planned to insert five minutes before I did, if Prime failed to come here first. Basically—and I think you know this—this whole area of the encyclopedia is fraught with strife, and sometimes phrases or even words get argued about incessantly. Any significant change to the lead should be discussed here first, and this was a significant change.

As far as your question concerning the Project is concerned, I don't know the "why" of it, but it was added in this edit in 2014 by Alexwho314 (talk · contribs) with the iffy edit summary Fixed dead link. Why it has survived so long, is another question, but I would chalk it up mostly to "it's an all-volunteer project", and there always seeming to be something better to do to fix the article than worry about that (obscure) project that maybe someone in the "in-crowd" knew was somehow important to it. But that's just a guess.

As far as "Yet now its removal requires justification?!": removing any sourced content in this article requires justification, and changing anything in the lead requires justification; at the very least in the edit summary. If if it's a slam-dunk ("no such organization"; "hoax"; "vandalism by indeffed sock"; "source says the opposite"). Andand preferably here on the Talk page for anything of substance which might be reasonably opposed by an editor; essentially, the verifiability standard. I happen to agree that it should be removed, and would support it; I'm just saying making your case for it here, to see if anyone objects; your edit summary of "revise lead" is in no way sufficient for that. That's why I reverted. We're on the same side here, I think; but this article isn't a free-for-all, so just talk it out; that's all I'm saying. Also, when you do make a change to the lead of a highly visible article in a highly controversial area, please take it in smaller chunks than 1kb at a time; it makes it easier to discuss what it is you want to add or subtract.

So, can we start over: what do you want to change in the Lead, and how will it improve the article? As far as LMAP, that's a gimme, imho; "take it out because it's unique info not sourced in the body, and that does not adhere to MOS:LEAD". I would also take it out of the article entirely, but maybe you (or someone else) knows something about it that I don't, and considers it worth a mention (or a footnote?) in the body somewhere. That's worth discussion, too. (And that's another reason why it's good to make incremental, bite-size changes; because when you lump them all together like that, there's too much to talk about on the Talk page, and discussions can end up all over the place on six different topics all rolled into one section, it gets hard to follow who's responding to what, and nothing ever gets decided.) Just make your case; you'll probably get most or all of what you want, imho. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Redact to separate sentences that got confusingly joined. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Mathglot reverting the lead. I also would have reverted if I'd seen the changes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hiplibrarianship, or if you prefer, I'll start; your choice. If you start, please pick one thing, if possible, until we get consensus on that, before casting a wider net. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that my (two consecutive) edits amount to improved readability and coherence of (not a "significant change" to) the lede. But rather than pursue a seemingly fundamental disagreement regarding substance-blind reverts to constructive contributions...

I'll suggest here that the entire clause regarding the Movement Advancement Project, regardless or sourcing, be reconsidered. Admittedly some type of pointer to the 2008 Community Center Survey Report has been around since this edit in April 2009, but at the time it was specifically supporting a claim about "mainstream" "self-designation" for LGBT Community Centers themselves. (A simultaneous ref to the stylebook of the NLGJA has not survived as long.) It does appear that the 2008 report was the first of its kind, and it certainly offer many examples of LGBT in use. Yet this frequent usage appears to take the initialism (itself) for granted, with no particular mention of its choice. (In contrast, the 2018 report does make explicit mention of "acronym" choices, with LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ being used "in the context of programs for youth.") The same 2008 report gets mentioned/cited in LGBT community#Terminology, where it seems to be a somewhat better fit. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 17:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

By "reconsidered", do you mean, "take it out", or more, "open it up for discussion for possible rewording"? Or something else? I'd be fine with just removing the whole sentence. Mathglot (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

By "reconsidered" I mean: open to the level of discussion that others would like to have. Also fine with simply removing it. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 04:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Conceivably it could be moved to the body, but I think WP:DUE would stand in opposition to it there. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Activist beliefs

The lede paragraph currently includes the unsourced claim: "Activists believed that the term gay community did not accurately represent all those to whom it referred." While this could potentially be the case (rather difficult to gauge what a majority of activists believe at any particular moment), it strikes me as largely irrelevant to concisely explaining the initialism itself. Discuss? Or simply remove? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 20:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

the '90s heyday of lesbigay

A relatively common umbrella term during the 1990s was lesbigay, which saw declining use as lgbt became more common. The term had its own article for a few years, before being redirected here in November 2004. Given the redirect, I'd suggest the portmanteau warrants at least some treatment in this article. Thoughts from others? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

At its maximum extent, the article was never more than a four-sentence stub. However, that shouldn't be decisive, and the sources are out there. The article currently contains some jawbreakers with fewer sources, and this is a bit of history that probably deserves a mention somewhere. Thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible move

Should this article's title be changed to LGBT+ or LGBTQ to be more inclusive? ~ HAL333([9]) 03:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is a loaded question, this was discussed at WP:LGBT here. We went over this in July here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Hello so this page has a small problem, in the paragraph about the initialism of the LGBTTQIAAP there should only be one 'a', ally is supporting the community not apart of the community. Please make this change because it can confuse many people and I wouldn't want that to happen. Thank you for reading this. Emma-Ray-Norman (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is intentional per the next phrase: "However, adding the term "allies" to the initialism has sparked controversy..." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Change the definition of LGBTTQQIAAP to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, aromatic, pansexual YourLocalLesbian (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Same as above. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

1996

LGBTQ was probably in use about 20 years before the lead used to claim. See, e.g., Canada in 1977 and this magazine in 1982. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

In the lead, it says "Other, less common variants also exist, with some being rather extreme in length, resulting in an initialism over twice as long, which has prompted some criticism." I think this is a pretty undue emphasis. If any criticism would be included, I think a more apt thing to mention is the critique of the term as described in the corresponding section.

I propose we change 'These two initialisms are sometimes combined to form the terms LGBTIQ [7] or LGBT+ to encompass spectrums of sexuality and gender.[8] Other, less common variants also exist, with some being rather extreme in length, resulting in an initialism over twice as long, which has prompted some criticism.[9][10][11]' to 'These two initialisms are sometimes combined to form the terms LGBTIQ [7] or LGBT+ to encompass spectrums of sexuality and gender;[8] other, less common variants exist. Not all LGBT people consider themselves part of an all-encompassing LGBT community.' Respectfully, 98.35.13.170 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The claim that there is some portion of LGBT people who do not consider themselves part of a LGBT community particularly needs a source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources are given lower down in the article: 'The initialisms LGBT or GLBT are not agreed to by everyone that they encompass.' and 'The portrayal of an all-encompassing "LGBT community" or "LGB community" is also disliked by some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.' which is talked about for a couple paragraphs. Frankly, those sections aren't sufficiently neutral and I'd like to see opposing views to this criticism. But I think the last paragraph in the lede should be more representative of what the article actually says. I've never heard anyone honestly criticize some little used 10 letter long initialism, but identity politics is topical. Anyway, I guess this is a complicated request, sorry. Respectfully, 98.35.13.170 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Don't be sorry for asking for an edit request, even if it is not accepted. I have modified the lead partially to include the kernel of the request, namely that the LBGT&&& label is not accepted by all as a community label, and used the first cite in the Criticism section. thank you for helping improve this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)