Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Help with draft article about YouTube Pride 2021

I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 celebrations User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. I don't believe this topic is notable at the moment, but it likely will be after the event occurs, though I would guess you've been assigned this task to promote this event in advance. But there's no substantial coverage, just announcements of some famous names and that it will exist. Onlookers should note that some of the sources only cover the topic in passing (which is not to say they're not worth including). This isn't a world-famous event like the Olympics and it's not yet been analysed in-depth by commentators. (For instance, if we had a couple of articles finding it ironic that YouTube is doing a Pride video despite being largely responsible for recent far-right anti-LGBTQ mass radicalisation, or saying their priorities should be fixing the systematic censorship of non-sexual queer content from YouTube Kids... well that would change things.) As for improvements, I would mention the date (June 25) in the first sentence and remove "The virtual event will take place around the world" if that just means "It will be on the internet", and clarify it if it's supposed to mean something more substantial. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As Bilorv said, it doesn't just need to exist and have (your) publicity; per WP:FUTURE #1, the preparation of the future event must be well-documented in reliable sources, enough that were it to be completely cancelled on the day of the event, the preparation itself would be notable enough to justify an article. Asserting that it will be notable in the future does not mean it gets an article today. I also direct you to FUTURE #5 about advertising. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Since the event is now over, I updated the draft for YouTube Pride 2021 using past tense and put in more details and sources. Would you mind taking another look? You can find the draft here: User:Peony1432/sandbox. Thank you Peony1432 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've moved it to "draftspace" where other editors can more easily find and edit it. It's now at Draft:YouTube Pride 2021. Thanks, Peony1432 for your input on this. Star Mississippi 21:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, an editor has moved the draft to mainspace. It is now live at YouTube Pride 2021. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And it's now back in draftspace. I'm not sure what the correct place is for this article as it stands, but I do think it can eventually be ready for mainspace with some work based on coverage I'm seeing. Courtesy @Kingsif: to this discussion. Star Mississippi 19:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Thank you for your work and comments on the Draft:YouTube Pride 2021. Since you said you thought it would be ready for mainspace with more work, I wanted to offer to do this work, with your guidance. What do you suggest I do? Were you thinking of the story about Elton John’s reflections about the day of his marriage and/or Daniel Howell “breaking the internet”?107.185.131.152 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 107. Are you also Peony1432, or a different google staffer looking to work on this. Either is fine, but if you are Peony, it's easier for us to reach you if you log in as we can ping you. Just noting that I see your request and will come back to you later this week when I have a few moments to look into this. Thanks for your help Star Mississippi 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Yes, I am Peony1432. I neglected to sign in last time. Thank you for taking the time to look at my request. Peony1432 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

• 9 Victor Hugo (artist and window dresser) 733,910 23,674 Stub Unknown
• 172 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) 145,968 4,708 Stub Unknown
• 203 David Crane (producer) 127,530 4,113 Stub Unknown
• 223 Noah Galvin 121,038 3,904 Stub Unknown
• 24 Schitt's Creek 458,176 14,779 Start Unknown
• 28 Pansexuality 394,705 12,732 Start Unknown
• 32 RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under 382,834 12,349 Start Unknown
• 55 Billy Porter (actor) 295,065 9,518 Start Unknown
• 63 For All Mankind (TV series) 278,992 8,999 Start Unknown
• 65 Emma Portner 276,566 8,921 Start Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Porter is clearly better than "Start" class by now, as is Pansexuality, which was set to "Start" class over a decade ago and just never updated. :o I left a comment on Talk:Pansexuality highlighting steps that could increase that article's completeness further, too. -sche (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sylvia Rivera activism section begins by relying too heavily on a single article

The first few paragraphs of the activism section of Sylvia Rivera's article sources almost entirely to a single article, one which puts her in a negative light. Perhaps it should remain a part of her article (unless it is shown to be untrue) but there should probably also be more alternate, neutral, and positive sources for information surrounding her life and activism. True love and understanding (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 July, 2021 (UTC)

Ideological contributions to articles on sex and gender

A small number of editors are making radical changes to a range of articles, including articles within the scope of this project, aligned with views that presuppose that gamete size is the sole determinant of sex. Some of these changes have been made to articles on intersex, including that page. Sex determination is far more complex in cases of intersex. Changes relevant to this project have been made to intersex, disorders of sex development, 5α-Reductase deficiency‎, true hermaphroditism, hermaphrodite, gynandromorphism, sex, sex and gender distinction, sex differences in humans, and also non-binary gender and queer. The modus operandi appears to impose a narrow view of sex determination as uncontested and incontestable, remove all content on social, cultural or human rights aspects from articles where they think a narrow biological view is the only possible view, and add material on gender and LGBT issues to make them as contestable and even ridiculous as possible (such as an attempt to add 'xenogender' to non-binary gender).

These changes are associated with narrow views about medicine and the diverse global settings where people with relevant traits - and Wikipedia readers - live. For example, recent changes to 5α-Reductase deficiency‎ have been justified on the talk page by an assertion that all infants go through sex chromosome testing that can identify whether or not that infant has the trait. That editor has just proposed a RfC on this little-watched talk page.

I would very much appreciate a wider range of eyes on these articles. Thank you. Trankuility (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've watched all those articles and this WikiProject for a long time, and I haven't seen that radical of changes, just a gradual improvement with strong academic sources in some of them - certainly not large removals. My memory is not perfect, though, and any specifics can be discussed at the articles. Some of those articles say little or nothing about humans, being focused on other parts of the tree of life. Regarding the 5 alpha reductase deficiency article, I asked the initiating editor to supply WP:MEDRS sources on the talk page; that should be an easy answer to that question at least if he follows through. Regarding xenogenders, though we did end up not including it, the editor who brought it up had doubts about the matter, while another editor, who in no way could be considered a transphobe, spoke in favor of including it on Wikipedia. See Talk:Non-binary gender#About the xenogender. That it was brought here to ask about seems like a sign of good faith. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tranquility the reason I thought about including xenogender was because I thought the source was reliable but other editors said it probably wasn’t. So I just removed it and agreed with other editors for it's removal.

Don’t assume editors are including things into articles as a way to make a certain identity seem ridiculous.CycoMa (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Need for formal guidelines surround q-word

As far as I can tell, this subject has had some previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 1#LGBT, queer and definition, as well as briefly/in passing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 68#LGBT or LGBT+ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 31#Project guidance on 'homosexual'. There seems to be a consensus that “queer” is a word many LGBT people are uncomfortable with. We know “queer” is not a neutral word so I think we need to make some formal additions to the style guide to reflect this.

There are some people (this is especially problematic for historical lesbian and gay men) whose articles refer to them as "queer" despite the fact that they never used this label themselves and almost certainly would have been called this term in a derogatory manner. (For example, I recently changed Sherry McKibben to remove the q-word. My edit was reverted due by another editor who claimed that the existence of WP:QUEER as a redirect proved that “queer” is not a slur and is thus appropriate. This interaction sparked my desire for such guidelines.)

Additionally, the word “queer” is often used as a synonym for gay or homosexual. Instead of using precise/specific language, many editors seem to opt for the word “queer”. For example, the article on Rachel Sennott uses the word “queer” to describe two films about young women in homosexual relationships. Though one film is explicitly about a bisexual young woman and the other (as best I can tell) is not explicit about the character’s sexuality outside of her attraction to women, it seems inappropriate to use what many still consider a slur to denote the unifying feature when the unifying feature is actually female homosexual desire. (As a lesbian, I feel much more comfortable with the word homosexual than I do with the word queer.) Also Leslie Cheung, despite the cited source explicitly saying that he was important because he played gay characters in a conservative film industry, uses the word “queer” to describe his characters.

(See also: Blake Lee’s page describes ‘’The Christmas Setup’’ as being centred around a queer love story, but the film has a gay couple at its centre. Gay and queer are not synonyms.)

There also may be an issue with using “queer” to describe people who have spoken publicly about their desire not to use labels (see Ben Lewis#Personal Life’s reference to Tessa Thompson and compare with [1] and [2], the latter of which is the source for the article). I have not noticed other examples, but I also have not been looking for them and am not very knowledgeable about which notable people do and don’t use labels for their sexuality and/or gender identity.

Note that these are only some examples of the types of problems that I have noticed, but not a conclusive list.

I propose implementing a formal guideline encouraging editors not to use the word "queer" in describing someone unless they are directly quoting a source, it is a word that the article's subject has used to describe themselves, or the word is called for in a commonly accepted phrase or term such as “queer theory”. The guidelines should also indicate that “queer” should be used intentionally and avoid describing things as “queer” when they have a more explicit/accurate connection that could better be describer by another, less controversial term (ie. gay). Samsmachado (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. After you get comments here, you will want to take this to an MOS or Village Pump page where it gets wider input; that's the only way for something to get added to a guideline. I see no good reason to call someone "queer" when more specific labels almost always exist, and something like LGBT can be used as another option. It looks grating. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with the course of action Crossroads recommends, I also dispute the premise, i.e., that gay is less controversial a term than queer. The vibe I get from the OP is of a person who is perfectly comfortable assimilating more marginal and exposed homosexualities and-socialities under a "gay" umbrella, regardless of the feelings of those affected, but who get all up in arms the moment something they don't identify with is proposed as the "umbrella" identity, q.v. queer. Where we can (i.e. where the results are not absurd), we should simply allow people the identities they consciously hold and express for themselves, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

OP here. Just wanted to add a clarification in light of the above comment. I think Newimpartial's point is entirely valid. I'm not proposing using gay as an umbrella term for anything other than homosexual (ie. exclusively same-sex attracted). My proposal would involve recommending LGBT or LGBTQ+ (or some such umbrella term that doesn't directly rely on a word that has widely been and continues to be used as a slur) as a replacement for "queer" in some cases. My reason for proposing this is largely due to my own discomfort with being labelled "queer" and the shared discomfort I see amongst many members of the LGBTQ+ community with this label (especially the LGB community). Homosexuality is not "queer" in the sense of strange or unusual and it is frustrating to have this label continually forced on you. Using "gay" to describe someone who isn't exclusively same-sex attracted has similar problems in terms of lacking specificity/explicitly to using "queer". I think part of the discussion necessary within my proposal (though I wasn't explicit about this) would be to agree on an acronym (LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQ, etc.) that can be used as a more neutral/less controversial descriptor. Samsmachado (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Queer and LGBT are often not precisely synonymous, and I would oppose any guideline that attempts to broadly censor use of the former from Wikipedia based on personal dislike. We have applicable policies, most notably WP:BLP, that requires solid sourcing for any claim about living people, which would include only referring to a living person's sexuality by their own self descriptors. After that, we should be broadly reflective of sources, which means using queer when they do, or other terms as appropriate. Starting from the position that queer is a slur and needs to be excised wherever possible is not a neutral approach. For example, when sources talk about queer themes in film, as they do in a couple of the articles mentioned above, it is inappropriate for us to apply a general policy of sanitizing that to the more anodyne LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I support Samsmachado's proposal. It's not appropriate to editorialize the word "queer" into articles where the subjects or sources do not use it (or explicitly use other words). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

But that's not what is proposed. Under the proposed guidelines, we would be required to edit out the word queer, except under certain conditions, in spite of the term's widespread use in the sources. For example, Samsmachado objects to calling The Christmas Setup "Lifetime's first Christmas movie centered around a queer love story" in the article on star Blake Lee. There are six reviews of that movie listed as references in its article, all from major magazines and news sites (CBC, O Magazine, Washington Post, etc.). All of those reviews use queer in some fashion, including a quote by Lee "...that this will just be the beginning of representation for all queer people." Under the proposed guidelines, any summary of that body of sources would need to censor queer outside of direct quotes. Rather than generally reflecting the language of the sources, we would be required to replace queer with "less controversial" alternatives to avoid causing offence.--Trystan (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree largely with those above. My perspective is this: In the absence of sources using the word queer, I think LGBT (or another acronym) is the most appropriate, as the terms queer and LGBT are not synonymous in modern academic writing. "Queer perspectives on film X" is a fine thing, or describing a film as "a queer romance" - but only insofar as those specific descriptors are used in relation to the subject. If they're not, reverting to the more generic LGBT seems acceptable. Some wider input would be welcome, though the project also has some guidance where we could begin drafting a proposal for wider consideration. Urve (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't have any concern about the term being interpreted as a slur. I think that's increasingly rare. My concern is mostly based on the academic use of the word queer as in eg queer vs lgbt studies, where precision matters. Urve (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a little surprised to hear that the word is being used as a catch-all like this. IRL, I only ever hear it used as a mild pejorative (more often by LGBT people, in a similar manner to the N word but with lesser severity), or as part of a self-description, where it's suffixed to another word, e.g. "genderqueer", "romancequeer" or "sexqueer". I couldn't tell you what the latter two terms mean exactly, mind, I can only attest to hearing them. In light of this use and the reactions I'm seeing here, I support this proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Queer hasn't been a general pejorative for a long time. Anyone who still uses it like that is, frankly, dumb, and you're probably misinterpreting it. Now, I also have no idea what those latter terms are, but if they are emerging identities (new names, not new identities) then it will probably get back to this project soon enough. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm completely sure, because I've had conversations about exactly this after opining several years ago that queer hadn't been a pejorative in many years and being approached about it by multiple LGBT people to correct me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is one very simple answer to this, the thing we've been doing the whole time: use it as in sources. And that's all that needs to be said. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Trystan and Kingsif. I don’t see a benefit of preferring or dis-preferring “queer” as a policy. In most cases, we should use the terms in the reliable sources for that topic. For BLPs, perhaps there’s a case for making a guideline around self-identification, similar to WP:LGBTCAT or MOS:GENDERID. POLITANVM ^talk 23:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif makes a valid point as does Politanvm. It should be used as it is used in sources. That's not that hard to do and I'm not sure why it shouldn't be used. In fact, a lot of reviewers (who are often part of the LGBTQ community themselves) use "queer" rather than LGBTQ (or the like) from what I have observed in recent years, so that should also be kept in mind as well. Historyday01 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room here is that most older people associate "queer" with a slur and most younger people associate "queer" with a self-identification, as that is how the terms are most commonly used among different generations. Other variance comes from geographic location, community and personal experience. I'd like to hear what older people think the connotations of the initialism "LGBTQ" are—does that still sound like a slur, because the "Q" stands for queer? You can't always substitute "queer" with "LGBT", in cases where someone's gender or sexuality is not fully clear. But if someone uses a clear descriptor of themselves, whether "queer" or "transgender woman", then we should use the most specific descriptor they give and not anything more specific. The case of being specific but not misleading when describing a romance between two women ("lesbian fiction" vs "queer fiction") is difficult, but we should be mindful that many bisexuals would object to people using the word "lesbian" to describe them or their relationships (like the phrase "lesbian marriage"). See also bisexual erasure. — Bilorv (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, I see "gay" and "queer" used in both ways, for example "This is a queer couple" on a magazine cover showing a bisexual woman and bisexual man explaining the complexities of identity. But if either word is shouted in anger down the street at someone, then it's definitely a hateful slur. I wouldn't shy away from using "queer" in encyclopedic contexts because it might be interpreted as a slur, and editors above are right that it's often used as an identity by people who don't way to label themselves "gay" or "bisexual" or as a catch-all term for lots of LGBT+ stuff. If the words have any negative connotation these days, it's mostly because either the speaker or audience attach a negative connotation to homosexuality itself, or non-binary gender or whatever the subtext is. All of that said, in an encyclopedia it's nice to use precise terms. If we're talking about a couple with two women who might be bisexual or lesbian, "same-sex" is perfectly good and more precise than "queer". I do agree that when labelling people, we should use the language they use to talk about themselves. If someone identifies as "straight but curious" labelling them as "gay" or "bisexual" is not quite right, but it's fine to be descriptive and talk about their "same-sex lovers" or "men and women lovers" or whatever. By that logic, we'd only talk about specific people being "queer" if that's what they call themselves, even if they fall under the controversial queer heterosexuality. In general LGBT+ articles, I'd follow the sources, feeling free to use "queer" if sources use that term, and "LGBT" and variations by default, for clarity. -- Beland (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Bilorv already mentioned this, but there is no question whatever that this is largely (but not exclusively) a generational issue. Reappropriation doesn't happen with the same speed (if at all) among people with different life experience, and younger generations benefit from the sacrifices of those that came before, and have nothing to reappropriate because they didn't experience the pain. Comments like "Queer hasn't been a general pejorative for a long time. Anyone who still uses it like that is, frankly, dumb, and you're probably misinterpreting it" are ignorant of history, and are being gratuitously hurtful, even if not intentionally. What counts as a long time for you, might seem like yesterday for someone else: Wally Funk just blasted into space on Blue Origin; she was 30 when Stonewall happened, and she's a rookie astronaut today. Queen Elizabeth is still ruling the United Kingdom; she was a teenager when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, kicking off World War II. History didn't start the day we were born, although as humans, we all have that conceit to a certain extent; hopefully as we grow older, we grow wiser. Having said that, I'm not sure if we need guidance for specific words; this is not the only word like that, one could look at tranny, which followed a very similar trajectory among members of another LGBT group and also have a generational divide in attitudes toward it. In contrast, words like she-male remain largely the same, or even became worse than they were at the outset, being associated now almost entirely with pornography, which was not the case at the outset. Anybody using that word around here now about a fellow editor (or the subject of an article) would suffer such universal opprobrium that a specific guideline against it hardly seems necessary. Note also, that we have N-word (disambiguation), but no MOS:N-word. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say the same things as Trystan: use sources; we have guidelines like WP:BLP which should prevent the a label being applied to a specific BLP who doesn't use it, whereas there's no valid reason to avoid queer (and especially, to avoid queer but not e.g. gay) in reference to e.g. general population statistics or fictional couples, etc., where queer is the term RS use. Indeed, given that queer and LGBT are not synonymous in many cases, to say "LGBT" (or something else) where sources say "queer" would be unacceptable under WP:V. (People who act like it is pressing to not use queer, but blithely accept gay—which has long been such a slur that generations have grown up with anything lame being called gay—reveal a bias which impedes writing a neutral encyclopedia. Gay has been a common slur more recently than queer was a common slur, so if anyone wants to start rewriting articles to avoid neutral uses of words which can also be slurs, start with one one that's more commonly and recently a slur...) -sche (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks

Skylar Deleon, one of the murderers, was born male, but tried - after the crime and in jail - to cut off his penis because he wanted to be a woman. Someone changed the initial "he"s to "she"s throughout the article, before and after the murders, with Deleon's later self-surgery only mentioned well into the article, so the casual reader would assume that Deleon was in a lesbian marriage with his/her co-killer wife and joined the Marine Corps as a woman. I would like to change it back, unless there are objections. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think changing it is appropriate under our guidance on pronoun use, which favors the most recent self-identification. Urve (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of Trans woman and Trans man

• Talk:Trans man#‎This definition is incorrect for intersex man.
• Talk:Trans woman#This definition is incorrect for intersex woman.

Per Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction, definition of trans woman in this article was changed to "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.". However this definition is not adequate for intersex woman. Categorizing Erik Schinegger as trans man and Lady Colin Campbell as trans woman would be problematic.

Lady Colin Campbell is not trans woman unless she identify as trans woman. Erik Schinegger is not trans man unless he identify as trans man. We should not categorize David Reimer as trans man.

Furthermore, this definition may not be neutral for trans person without transitioning. --Sharouser (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be original research and a WP:BLP violation for us to label people as trans based on our interpretation and application of the definition. That said, I don't agree that the definition is inadequate or problematic as it applies (or doesn't apply) to the examples your raise. The definition is generally reflective of reliable sources, so I don't know on what basis we would change it even if we concluded it was problematic.--Trystan (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Freddie Stewart

I wanted to bring Freddie Stewart (actor) to this project's attention, due to an issue that I'm not equipped to fix.

Within the past week, somebody added content to the article indicating that Stewart "sexually identified as trans" on the basis of this source, a photograph in a university archive whose description includes the phrase "Hill became one of the first transvestites to attend parties at the Double Header in Pioneer Square, the oldest gay bar in Seattle." But, of course, "transvestite" does not necessarily equal transgender per se — while it's certainly true that some "transvestites" or drag queens do explore cross-dressing as a first step toward coming out as transgender, it does not automatically follow that all "transvestites" or drag queens are automatically transgender. And, in addition, the article was added to Category:Transgender and transsexual male actors, Category:LGBT actors, Category:LGBT culture in New York City, Category:LGBT people from New York (state), Category:Lists of LGBT-related people and Category:Lists of people from New York City, not all of which are appropriate ("lists of" categories are for pages that are lists, not for adding articles about people to lists, and a person doesn't belong directly in "LGBT actors" at all if he or she is also in any of the "[Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer] actors" subcategories already) and none of which are adequately supported by what the source actually says — and the metadata on an archival photograph isn't even a great source in the first place.

But properly sourcing whether Freddie Stewart was really gay or transgender is beyond my ken, since it would likely require deep diving into American resources (such as archived American newspaper coverage) that I don't have access to — so I wanted to ask if somebody with better access to such resources can look into this to see whether Stewart's sexual orientation and/or gender identity are properly sourceable or not. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The description in question is not about Stewart, but about Francis Hill, who from the archival description appears to just be the owner of the photograph.--Trystan (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:List_of_cross-dressing_characters_in_animated_series#RFC_what_constitutes_as_crossdressing. Please feel free to weigh in on the conversation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about non-binary gender categories

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#How to organize non-binary gender categories. Please participate there if you have an opinion. Nosferattus (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-binary and female-focused articles

[3] [4]

Is this allowed? If we say "adults", etc., it's incorrect because it reports incorrect epidemiology. The information is about women, but "adults", etc. is broader. Nowearskirts (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not, and they have been reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming the deceased

There's a big ol' discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:DEADNAME_for_non-living_people about whether and when deadnaming standards should be applied to the dead. (It's really something that should've looped in this project earlier.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• This has now progressed to an RfC - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Quinn (soccer)

Are any editors from this project available to take a look at Quinn (soccer) and its talk page? There is an editor repeatedly inserting Quinn's deadname in the lead, when they have declared this is not their preference. Quinn is the first trans athlete to medal at the Olympics today and this is also a high-profile article. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has also been nominated for Did You Know on the Wikipedia homepage if anyone is interested in improving or reviewing. Hmlarson (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Third gender and non-binary

There is been something I keep noticing about articles on the topic of gender. It’s that they are combining third genders and non-binary. This is problematic because third genders and non-binary aren’t technically the same thing.

Non-binary is usually applied to a gender identity and is technically a western concept. Third gender isn’t always a gender identity.

Third genders like Māhū were mainly for religious reasons. While non-binary identifies (at least here in the west) aren’t.

Also just because a certain society may have a third gender doesn’t technically mean that society viewed these individuals as neither male or female. Like Chibados are individuals assigned male and live as women.

Overall it just feels like treating non-binary and third genders as the same thing is misunderstanding the cultural context of behind these genders.CycoMa (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't edited many articles on this topic, but I can say for pages like List of fictional non-binary characters and Non-binary characters in fiction, I only lumped all of them together because I'd think there was enough to have a page just about third genders, like List of fictional third gender characters or Third gender characters in fiction, or some much better titles as those are a little clunky. Currently, only two characters on the "List of fictional non-binary characters" are noted as third gender: Izana Shinatose in Knights of Sidonia and Brother Ken in bro'Town who is Fa'afafine. So, that was my thinking there. The third gender page looks pretty well-developed, but I wouldn't mind expanding that more. I guess I was under the impression that third genders and non-binary are in the same space. I'd never combine them together or think they are the same, but I would put them in the same article together if there wasn't enough content to make a page on the subject. Historyday01 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

My over all point is that I keep noticing editors lumping non-binary together or treating them like they are the same. The issue with that is the interpretation of non-binary isn’t the same as it in cultures with third genders.

So I feel like unless we find reliable sources that argue they are the same we shouldn't treat them as the same.CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree. They definitely should not be treated as the same, as they clearly are not the same. I'd say they are in the same space, but clearly aren't the same thing. But, I will see if I can update that third gender page with more entries. And, in light of this, I'd totally be willing to rename List of fictional non-binary characters and Non-binary characters in fiction pages if that is needed. None of those names are set in stone. Historyday01 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing problems at List of gay villages

Before I start hacking away all the unsourced material at List of gay villages, I figured I'd post here to give people a chance to find sourcing. At the last AfD, arguments to keep included With a lot of work, this article could be cleaned up and all items sourced. Or it could be purged and only sourced items left behind by KNHaw and This can be sourced or purged to include only those properly verifiable by BU Rob13. 6 years on and it's still massively unsourced so I don't think anybody could call me hasty if I started cleaning it up now. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I was surprised to see myself name checked here - I haven't touched this page in years! For what it's worth, I agree 100%. There has always seemed to be sourcing issues on this article and I see no problem with cleaning it up, including my own edits if they don't pass muster. I see you've already added a note to the talk page telling people to check out the discussion here, so I think you're ready to go. If you see a need to wait a day or two for comments here, feel free, but I honestly don't really see any need to wait.

And, since it absolutely needs to be said, thanks for stepping up! --KNHaw ^(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Media portrayal(s), singular or plural

We have Media portrayal of asexuality (where the lead uses "portrayals") but Media portrayals of bisexuality; Media portrayal of lesbianism, Media portrayal of LGBT people and Media portrayal of pansexuality (where the lead uses "portrayals") but Media portrayals of transgender people. Do we want to standardize these article titles to all be "portrayals" (or all be "portrayal")? IMO plural seems better as there is not one singular consistent media portrayal. I'm starting this thread here as this seems like a good central location, as opposed to any one article's talk page. FWIW other articles are also inconsistent in this respect, e.g. Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis (where the lead uses "portrayals") vs Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians. -sche (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I support that portrayal would be better. Merriam-Webster defines portrayal as "the act or process or an instance of portraying : representation" while Dictionary.com defines the same word as "the act of portraying," mentioning the word "portrayals" in some of the examples, while wikitionary says that portrayals is the plural of portrayal, defining the latter as "The result of portraying; a representation, description, or portrait." The same is the case for Chambers Dictionary, Collins Dictionary (notes "portrayals" as a plural), American Heritage Dictionary (a page for "portrayals" redirects to the same), and Wordniks (noted "portrayals" as a plural). But, I don't have any preference one way or another. Historyday01 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Caitlyn Jenner and MOS:DEADNAME

Hi everyone! You may want to view or participate in this discussion regarding debate over what name to use for Caitlyn Jenner in the article Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion about transpeople's deadnames

I made a suggestion on the talkpage of Chelsea Manning whether we should add in-article clarification of how deadnames are to be treated. I welcome members of this project to partake in the discussion here. Gaioa (T C L) 15:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gaioa: My gut reaction is that it could render transgender people marked and do more harm than good, but in any case that seems like a weird place to gauge consensus for something that presumably will have applications in many articles (why not here?). Nardog (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggested that Gaioa ask around on this page, because they are proposing a hatnote template and template syntax is not strong with me; also, it is not clear to me how the hatnote would work in practice. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog Well... I just happened to think of it when I passed my her article. That's why I put it there. And also, you're right that this could be a sense of marking. I updated the template to be less marking, click and check it out now: {{deadname}} Gaioa (T C L) 17:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"This page describes a person by a name that they no longer prefer to use, but were previously known and notable by." – Isn't that the exact opposite of what WP:DEADNAME says? "includes a name" was indeed better wording IMO, but either way I find it overkill, if not WP:BEANS. If the point is to deter well-meaning users from removing a deadname under which the subject was notable, I suggest using less intrusive methods like an editnotice, footnote or invisible comment. (Incidentally, I've wished the MoS didn't recommend mentioning permissible deadnames in the lead—especially not with the boldface.) Nardog (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to put this out there: I'm no analytical philosopher, but I find the Use-mention distinction useful in explaining how deadnames are treated. On WP, non-notable deadnames of living trans people are neither used nor mentioned, while notable deadnames are mentioned (generally once per article) but not used. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh and to Nardog: the thing is, if the deadname is a common search term - and some of them definitely are - then the bold, first sentence treatment aligns with other WP policies and actually seems encyclopaedic to me. However, I also have in my head the notion of "marginally-notable deadnames", cases that do meet WP:N pre-transition but where it seems unlikely to me that many readers would be aware of the pre- but not the post- transition name. In those cases, I would like to see the MOS recommend a different treatment, but there are multiple other gender-related issues currently under discussion at WT:MOSBIO - one at RfC - so I think it might take awhile to see that change. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What I feel uneasy about isn't the bold per se but the fact the birth name is literally the first piece of information one learns from reading the article that isn't already evident from the page title, and that it's bold. If it first appeared in the "Early life" section or what have you (which it often does anyway), it wouldn't bother me so much even if it was bold. Nardog (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, the full birth name (with a middle name) isn't usually what they were really known as anyway, so I'd find "formerly known as" after the first parentheses also at least preferable to the deadname being the first thing you read. Nardog (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree. Extended "birth names" have been removed (from text and infoboxes) at Elliot Page and The Wachowskis, though, which suggests a way forward. The history of the Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner articles makes it challenging to extend this best practice to all cases, however, and there is still push-back even at Elliot Page. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mónica del Real

Mónica del Real now is es:Ricardo del Real Jaime--Dispe (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the article to Ricardo del Real, and updated his pronouns based on this source from 2019 (Google Translated to English). I cannot personally read Spanish, but all the recent reliable sources I could find call him Ricardo del Real, so it appears to be his WP:COMMONNAME by en-Wiki's standards. Some additional categorization or infobox changes might be needed. Regards, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan

There's discussion on Talk:Barbara Jordan about whether the subject should be identified as lesbian, based on LGBT sources identifying her as such, or should her bio be whitewashed (so to speak) because she was closeted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest avoiding value-laden terms like "whitewashed" when crafting notifications of discussions. WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. Colin M (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scientology and sexual orientation#Requested move 8 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scientology and sexual orientation#Requested move 8 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Contributions welcome here

Since this WikiProject is featured in Template:RuPaul's Drag Race, I invite the members to partecipate in this discussion: RuPaul's Drag Race#Template edit suggestion. Thank you 92.28.190.117 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-binary (foreign) persons who prefer masculine/feminine pronouns (in English)?

Is this a thing? See this. Put simply, we have no evidence that the subject (a biological female who has recently self-identified as non-binary) prefers any particular set of pronouns, and the English version of the subject's official website continues to use female pronouns, but may -- or may not -- simply be waiting for an update. I'm not an expert on either LGBTQ+ matters or this particular artist, but I know that in the subject's native language, "the word" for she/her/her/hers is a relatively recent calque that is overused by non-native speakers relative to native ones. Input from those with a greater awareness of LGBTQ+ studies would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It appears it's been confirmed that Utada Hikaru is non-binary. Knowing that, and considering what they said about English honorifics (Ms., Mr. etc.), I don't see why not use singular They. The singular They should not only be used for non-binary people, but also for when in doubt about gender or preferred pronouns, which also appears to be the case here. Isabelle ^🔔 16:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's been confirmed" -- Utada seemed a bit dubious about it when speaking in Japanese, and definitely said nothing about preferred pronouns, and people were already congratulating the person for "coming out" for weeks before that because of a post expressing discomfort with titles that identify one "so markedly by [their] marital status or sex". (And yes, Utada did refer to female as "my ... sex" in the original version of that quote -- that didn't stop people from assuming this had constituted a self-identification as "non-binary".)

Anyway, back on topic, do you have a source that says non-binary people, including non-native English speakers (whose first language doesn't use personal pronouns like English), can be safely assumed to prefer gender-neutral pronouns? If gender (as opposed to biological sex) is a cultural/social construct, wouldn't that mean that such assumptions are inappropriate? Even if it won't help resolve the current Wikipedia issue, I would like such a source for the purpose of my own enlightenment. I asked a simple question, and you answered (or rather stated your opinion on) a different, more difficult, question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In terms of English-language pronouns- since this is English Wikipedia - there are many nonbinary (or genderqueer or genderfluid) people (like me or Quinn) who prefer "they/them" exclusively; there are others (like Miley Cyrus) who continue to use pre-transition pronouns, and still others (like Elliot Page) who drop pre-transition pronouns in favor of he/him and they/them. And other combinations. The one thing I think we can say for sure is that to expect a nonbinary etc. person to retrain pre-transition pronouns in English is unwarranted.

However, we do have an option in English to use when we don't know a person's gender and/or pronouns, which is they/them, so that pretty much solves the "problem" IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There are non-binary people who go by she/they. There are even non-binary people that call themselves lesbians.CycoMa (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It's confirmed in the sense that Utada says "I'm non-binary" in the video linked in the discussion. My point about pronouns is simply that, since we are not sure what their preferred pronouns are, and knowing "how traditional prefixes made them uncomfortable"[5], my opinion, as a non-binary person who uses she/them pronouns, is that we should try to accommodate that by using gender neutral pronouns (or no pronouns at all).

If you want me to more directly answer your question, pronouns in gendered languages are a difficult subject. In Portsuguese, which is my mother tongue, I prefer female pronouns, because we don't have neutral ones. Some non-binary people will choose the pronoun of the specific gender with which they feel closer to, others will accept both female and male, others will ask for neo-pronouns and some will change depending on how they feel at certain times in their lives. There is no right answer. I can't give a source on this, only my anecdotal experience. Isabelle ^🔔 01:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Some non-binary people will choose the pronoun of the specific gender with which they feel closer to, others will accept both female and male, others will ask for neo-pronouns and some will change depending on how they feel at certain times in their lives. There is no right answer. That's my point: we know the person has been married to seemingly straight, cisgender men, uses (or at least has used) the female-only first-person pronoun atashi[6], has not updated the English version of their website so as not to use "she" and "her" dozens of times, referred (in the first of the "coming out" statements) to "my ... sex" as female, and has ignored requests to state preferred pronouns; I know that we should avoid making assumptions at all costs, but in such a situation the safer assumption would be that the subject falls into the former of your listed categories and feels closer to the female gender. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Since someone's going to, I'll be the one to note that being married to men can be dismissed as an evidence point since sexual orientation does not tell you someone's gender identity. However, the English website using she/her and the use of a Japanese female first-person pronoun are extremely compelling. I feel that the pronouns should be changed back to she/her. Avoiding pronouns (or, even more misleadingly, using they/them as some have suggested) is deliberately avoiding what seems to be the self-expressed gendered words per MOS:GENDERID. I think you should start an RfC at the article on the topic (asking 'should feminine pronouns be used?') and lay out this evidence (minus the marriage stuff). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

sexual orientation does not tell you someone's gender identity Identifying oneself as a "girlfriend", "wife" and "mother" does, though, doesn't it? While Utada and Francesco Calianno divorced several years ago, their half-Italian, half-Japanese son apparently uses what Utada identified (last December) as "women's speech" due to his "mother's" influence.[7] Anyway, I'm not that bothered by it either way, so I don't think I'll be opening an RFC unless those who are already involved can't come to an agreement within the next week or so and I still think it's worth "arguing" over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

According to policy, though, we are supposed to set aside as irrelevant all pronoun choices, etc., etc., from before the nonbinary announcement. What do we have since then? Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

She referred to herself as atashi several times almost immediately after the moment in which she came out as non-binary in the livestream. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I must ask is there gender neutral language in Japanese?CycoMa (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Watakushi and watashi are used by both men and women. Atashi is only used by women. (I'm oversimplifying a lot. See wikt:Category:Japanese pronouns. Watakushi and watashi, being generally the most polite personal pronouns, are more likely to be used by women in contexts where men can get away with boku or perhaps even ore.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And how polite would you say Utadi's diction was, in the livestream? Newimpartial (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if she were trying to speak formally she would use watakushi or watashi, as would I (a man); when talking to chat in the first 15-20 minutes (as opposed to when interviewing Hideaki Anno in the last two thirds of the stream), she's speaking casually, in a context in which a man might use boku or ore while she uses the female-only atashi. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account is quite different from the one at Japanese pronouns. Could this be a dialect or speech community issue? Newimpartial (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Umm... no...? That article clearly says that watashi is used "in formal contexts" and below lists one environment in which male speakers are more likely to use it than any alternative. It also does not seem to imply anywhere that atashi can be used by men. Would you mind clarifying where you think the discrepancy is between my account and the one you are reading in our article? I could provide you with a clearer answer if you did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The discrepancy would be the column "gender" for "atashi" where it says females, rarely males. Newimpartial (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

By the I’m just comment this down. Gender identity in itself is subjective, it varies from person to person and changes over time. Like believe it or not there are non-binary people who still still go by he/him pronouns or non-binary people with she/her pronouns. Like Destiny (streamer) is non-binary and uses he/him pronouns.

In truth gender identity is just one of those things, where it can basically mean whatever you want it to mean.CycoMa (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• So what we have at this point is (1) Utada using female-only words even after the statement of being non-binary, and (2) Utada's personal website continuing to use she/her months after that statement. This is two prongs of evidence that Utada wants to be referred to in feminine terms. Pretty much the only argument otherwise is to ignore this evidence and to focus solely on the non-binary label - but quite a few non-binary people are quite fine with binary pronouns and some even prefer it, as noted above. This should be changed back. It is quite clear which way the evidence points. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Except that we don't actually have (1). So really it is just (2). And we also have RS in English that use they/them, usually for the quite sensible reason that there has been no pronoun announcement. And multiple editors have also objected to your deference to a website that the subject may not even edit. So why we would need to *introduce* pronouns into an article that doesn't use them, because quite a few non-binary people are quite fine with binary pronouns and some even prefer it without knowing what the subject prefers, is irresponsible and tending towards a BLP violation for no actual reason except YOULIKEIT. So don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Except that we don't actually have (1). I provided evidence of (1), and you linked to a 3,500-word Wikipedia article and said that what I am saying disagrees with something somewhere in that article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be the column "gender" for "atashi" where it says females, rarely males. Newimpartial (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that "pronoun announcements" are a thing in Japanese culture. We shouldn't be demanding one; we need to go off the evdience we have. And the article not using pronouns is a recent change; the status quo was the feminine pronouns. I too could point to BLP. This is clearly a very difficult case and it's why I suggested an RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would warm-heartedly embrace an RfC. I simply find the idea that continuity of pronouns should be followed in spite of a gender identity announcement ASTONISHing and pretty clearly counter to BLP. But BLP would never be violated by avoiding pronouns or by using generic ones (apart from edge cases, which this is not). Newimpartial (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect some WP:BLUD going on here.CycoMa (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup there are non-binary people who use binary pronouns. As I said before gender identity is very subjective thing.(Side note the notion of gender identity isn’t my opinion many pro trans sources have stated this.)

I mean it’s so subjective there are people inventing new pronouns like zig and zir or xe and xim.(yes those are real pronouns.)

Maybe the article on her should mention that her website still gives her, she/her pronouns and other websites mention she uses Japanese pronouns for woman.CycoMa (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Bugchasing" article

The bugchasing article was largely written before the advent, and since late 2020, wide availability, of PrEP and effective HAART HIV meds which reduce viral load to undetectable levels, which more or less completely eliminate the risk of transmitting HIV. (see here and here for some cites regarding this)

Given this risk reduction, is "bugchasing" still actually a thing? If not, I suspect this article's content is now largely of historical interest, and most of the content should be moved to the past tense. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

For those not following talk, yes indeed! Recent scholarship has addressed PrEP and indicated it has not eliminated bugchasing. Urve (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)