Talk:Outline of LGBT topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dopamine[edit]

Dopamine can refer to more than one thing:
Look up Dopamine in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
    * Dopamine is this.
    * Dopamine (Film) is a Film.
{{disambig}}
</noinclude>

What the hell is this doing on this page, and how do I get rid of it? I tried editing the page but there is no code for it. The disambig template is not showing up but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it or the link with it. I'm confused. I think we broke the Wikipedia. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, never mind, it's gone now. *shakes head in bewilderment* - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NPOV tag[edit]

There was no dispute, so the NPOV tag was unwarranted. Consequently, the tag has been removed. If someone is confused or disagrees as to what can be called anti-LGBT, then that political discussion must be held elsewhere since the article itself is neither a springboard or a forum for debates. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute as I as an editor on wiki have raised one. The concern is the themes under Anti-LGBT are all negative and do not reflect general theological, social or culture objections as Anti --meaning against the lifestyle. thus the reader is left to believe that being anti- is excusively associated with terms like homophobia etc. As per the rules a talk page is the procedure before this tag can be removed. Thank Q for being civil. No page on wiki is owned by any one group of people or clique. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading into things since "the reader" you bring up is only yourself: no other reader or editor made your claims or similar ones. In any case, the dispute tag is, once again, unwarranted as there is no dispute. Second, I should like to remind you that you tagged the article first without discussing the topic on the talk page at all, i.e. until my interventions. That is the main reason why I removed it: the person who placed it there did not discuss the issue. Third, your blurb for placing it there in the first place was in, no offense, barely intelligible English. Therefore, there is no dispute because I neither support or reject what you are trying to convey, nor is anyone else here so far.

Please add what you think is missing instead of resorting to the NPOV tag. If indeed something vital, reliable, and verifiable is missing, please add it. I'd be happy to correct it so that native speakers like myself can access its point. It would be a great service to use a sandbox first and then ask for input as the point you're trying to make is lost in translation. Thank you. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this is a disambiguation page not an article. We should take care to present items here neutrally but they remain simply a list of articles and brief descriptions to help our readers find the articles they are looking for. I'm re-removing the NPOV tag as it indeed seems misplaced. If anyone objects please explain it detail which entry you feel should be reworded and perhaps even suggest what that wording should be. -- Banjeboi 22:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion. However I strongly disagree with CJ argument that "no one else has an issue" that is not a logically counter-argument. Thats like saying well your objections are not valid because you are the 1st to say these things. Where in wikipedia logic is that a valid position? So if i complain to Walmart they can say "no one else has a problem -- just you"? Anyway as an editor (not of this topic) and a reader it seems the portal points to adversely negative things. As a reader I am looking for Anti-LGBT positions which are not all violent and hateful. like biologist, academics, churches etc. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page or not?[edit]

This is not a proper disambiguation page. The terms on the page (except for the book, which has a title different from the title of the page) are merely variations on a broad theme. bd2412 T 20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, regarding this and this edit you made, I don't see why this page should not simply redirect to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Anti-homosexual attitudes...which is a link currently in the article. Wikipedia does not need another article about being anti-LGBT. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that "homosexuality" does not necessarily equate to "LGBT," but the aforementioned link I pointed to is about LGBT matters as well. The anti-homosexuality articles on Wikipedia address transgender issues, and sometimes intersex issues. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "LGBT" is a supercategory of "homosexuality", and opposition to "LGBT" encompasses and exceeds the latter. This page could be better named, but it covers a broader ground. bd2412 T 01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around, technically anyway: Homosexuality is a supercategory of LGBT. Either way, we have enough anti-LGBT articles; that's clear from the page in question. I can't be convinced that we need another one. This page, if it's not to be a disambiguation page, needs to redirect to one of those, in my opinion; the primary candidate is, of course, the Homophobia article, which concerns lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in the Wikipedia hierarchy, or in reality? The "T" stands for transgender, which includes people who are completely heterosexual (or consider themselves heterosexual) but live as a gender other than the one they were born with. bd2412 T 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking. The reason that I stated "[i]t's the other way around, technically anyway: Homosexuality is a supercategory of LGBT" is because lesbian, gay and bisexual people make up homosexuality. Being transgender is independent of homosexuality; well, except for the cases of laypeople confusing the two and except for scientists conflating the two (for example, Blanchard's transsexualism typology). A transgender person might be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or, like you noted, heterosexual. To state that "LGBT is a supercategory of homosexuality" is, to me, like stating that a person being transgender means that the person is gay, lesbian or bisexual. Not to mention that the term LGBT is an umbrella term for various non-heterosexual identities. Furthermore, stating that "opposition to LGBT ... exceeds the [opposition to homosexuality]" is not too accurate to me because, besides LGBT concerning three homosexual components (being gay, lesbian or bisexual), people who are transphobic are usually also homophobic, as also noted in the Homophobia and Transphobia articles. The hatred or disgust that many people have for transgender people usually stems from their hatred of or disgust for homosexuality (the fact that they think that, for example, a transgender woman is actually a gay man trying to trick heterosexual men into a romance or sexual activity). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: I usually employ the sex and gender distinction; this means that I usually don't use the term gender to refer to genetic sex matters, such as "a gender other than the one they were born with," but I understand why others don't distinguish the two, or don't distinguish them much. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supercategory and umbrella term mean roughly the same thing. In the same way, "plant" is the supercategory of "tree" and "plant". bd2412 T 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you stated that "LGBT" is a supercategory of "homosexuality," you were stating that "LGBT" is an umbrella term of "homosexuality"? If so, I don't see how stating that is any better. I also disagree with that phrasing, per what I stated above. I'm not sure what you are trying to state on this matter. I explained what I meant when I stated that "[h]omosexuality is a supercategory of LGBT," though I was apparently using the term supercategory differently than you were. And after that, as you can see, I stated that LGBT is an umbrella term. In other words, I don't see homosexuality as the umbrella term...except for in the case of any same-sex romantic or sexual attraction/activity. But no matter what is meant by our semantics on all this, I still do not see a need for an Anti-LGBT article; I've been clear as to why in both my "01:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)" and "03:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)" posts above. If starting a WP:RfC is seen as needed in this case, then okay. I'm not very concerned about this page; I'm simply tired of redundant Wikipedia articles -- needless WP:Content forking. And, yes, per what I already stated above, I consider an Anti-LGBT article as needless WP:Content forking; this topic is already covered at the Homophobia article, and the transgender aspect has a devoted page to it -- Transphobia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think having an article on LGBT is redundant to having an article on homosexuality? bd2412 T 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The LGBT and Homosexuality articles are two entirely different things. The LGBT article is about the initialism and variant initialisms for non-heterosexual people. The Homosexuality article is about any same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction/sexual activity, whether people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual, or don't identify by any sexual identity, though its primary focus is about having a homosexual sexual orientation (a gay man or a lesbian). The LGBT community article is specifically about the LGBT community. The Gay article is about the term gay, which can nowadays mean a gay or lesbian person, an insult, or, historically, that a person is happy. While these articles overlap, none of them are redundant. An anti-LGBT article, however? I reiterate that we already have more than one of those, and that the primary one is the Homophobia article. If you want this discussion to actually progress, I suggest you invite WP:LGBT to it and/or start a WP:RfC on the matter; I likely will do those things in the future.
On a side note: As you can see, I broke this discussion away from the "Removal of NPOV tag" above, by naming it "Disambiguation page or not?". I then fixed the WP:Indentation accordingly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the project page before I made this change. So far I have heard no response. bd2412 T 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see if anyone weighs in after my note there in that section; as you can see, my edit summary is also meant to get attention. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is In my opinion, this page is currently a list of distinct concepts which are only related to each other in that they are all called "anti-LGBT". There is no existing article which could be a main article for this topic, and because this term is used to name so many differing concepts, I cannot imagine anyone making a meaningful article with this title. I see no problem leaving this page as it is.
Could anyone who wants change briefly state the proposal for change? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flyer22 would redirect this title to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Anti-homosexual attitudes. I would keep it probably as an index page. The concepts are related beyond the shared name (and note that, per WP:DABMENTION, it is not clear that each of these topics is individually "also known as anti-LGBT"); each of these concepts describes the treatment of some people by other people. It's not like there is a rock band named "Anti-LGBT" that must be distinguished from a town named "Anti-LGBT" and a film titled "Anti-LGBT". bd2412 T 22:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, there is no need to ping me to this page. And Bluerasberry, if this page is not to be a disambiguation page, I would redirect it to the Homophobia article...per what I stated above...which is that Wikipedia already has more than one anti-LGBT article, primarily the Homophobia article; that article covers anti-feelings toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT); basically, most people who are non-heterosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ping, just an identification. Also, if Wikipedia already has more than one anti-LGBT article, how does the reader determine which one they are looking for, unless there is a list of them somewhere? bd2412 T 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I stated "there is no need to ping me to this page," I was also talking about identification (since I considered that might be the reason you pinged me). I am clearly seen above in this section. And as for a list, I don't mind this page being a disambiguation page. What I mind is yet another anti-LGBT article; I've already stated why above, and repeating myself in this discussion is not helping a thing. All that our discussion is doing is creating a WP:Too long, didn't read matter. We should wait and see if others state anything about this topic in the upcoming hours or days. But to be even clearer, the term homophobia is the WP:Primary topic for "anti-LGBT"; this clear to anyone well-versed on these topics, as I am. It's even clear by what the pages state. The lead of the Homophobia article currently states, in part, "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." The lead of the Anti-LGBT page currently states, "Anti-LGBT or anti-gay is the concept of opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people." That is the exact same thing as homophobia, but stated in less words, and the Homophobia article links to a good number of terms found on the Anti-LGBT page. That article is the WP:DABCONCEPT article you are looking for when it comes to the topic of being anti-LGBT. Any term that is linked on the Anti-LGBT page that is not linked in the Homophobia article can be linked there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a general topical index, with this list merged into it? bd2412 T 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that as a compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All there is to do, then, is to write it. bd2412 T 04:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of a "general topical index, with this list merged into it", but I do not agree that anti-LGBT is the same as homophobia. Homophobia generally is not a term applied to transgender issues despite its Wikipedia article saying that it could be, and many of the transgender concepts here are not discussed in the homophobia article. Outside of western culture, in India for example, many people who are against gay rights are supporters of transgender rights, and I think they are correctly termed homophobic but it would not be entirely right to call them anti-LGBT. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title we are looking for is Outline of LGBT topics. bd2412 T 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I suppose it would be Portal:LGBT in prose form. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:LGBT/Topics, but at a higher level of detail. bd2412 T 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented this proposal, expanding the page and moving it to Outline of LGBT topics. Substantial additional expansion is still warranted, and there are many examples to draw from for this (Outline of law, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of political science, etc.). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BD2412. I think this article is better than the anti-lgbt page which came before it. The format of this article matches the format of other, similar articles. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines[edit]

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 23:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove some links[edit]

I think we should remove sex, female, male, and maybe even hermaphrodite.

The links to articles those articles are mostly biological related articles not LGBT articles. Not entirely sure if this is a good idea or not to be honest so what do y’all think? CycoMa (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa, I just reverted your recent edits. I am not sure why you think "biological" and LGBT are mutually exclusive categories. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers I removed your mention of intersex under sex. I mean did you even read the articles that are linked?CycoMa (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously why do y’all keep trying to put intersex under sex. No one thinks intersex is a third sex category, hell not even intersex activists think that.CycoMa (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also intersex is already mentioned in a different section.CycoMa (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I definitely know intersex people who would consider that to be their sex, but "sex" doesn't really belong under "identity", so how about this: Turn "Bodies" (which is a strange section header) into "Sex and physiology" (still as a top-level section), consisting of Male, Female, Intersex, and Endosex. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin there are tons of sources that say male and female are defined by gamete type tho. This isn’t original research, this is literally what biology sources on articles like sex say.
Most individuals who claim it is aren’t biologists in the slightest. Plus even if there is no consensus I don’t want some person with a condition like that reading this and think they are a thir d category.CycoMa (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. I am also not a fan of "Bodies" as a section name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this too - "Bodies" is confusing. BobEret (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers Also I never said biology and LGBT are exclusive and don’t align at times.CycoMa (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining! Part of why I asked was to get a better understanding of your position. All I had to go off of at the time was your edit summary, where you said "I’m not sure why articles related to biology are here". To me there is no reason biology articles shouldn't be included. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa If sex is kept in this page, then not including intersex makes no sense, since intersex issues are widely considered to be a part of broader LGBT+ issues. Not sure whether sex and male and female should be included - perhaps it would be better just to include Sex and gender distinction. BobEret (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret I never said intersex shouldn’t be mentioned, I’m saying intersex shouldn’t be under sex. Putting it under sex implies intersex is a third sex category. Claiming or implying it is, is scientific inaccurate and not even activists claim this.CycoMa (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you scroll through the article intersex is already listed.CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers what I was trying to say is that the information presented in biology articles and articles related to LGBT don’t always align. Like the article sex says the gametes an produced by an organism define its sex. That’s not really the case for LGBT articles.CycoMa (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I'm not sure that "not even activists" claim that intersex isn't a third category - there isn't any consensus. For example, here an activist claims that intersex is a third category[1], but here an organisation claims it isn't: [2]. It makes sense for it to be under sex (and perhaps endosex should be there as well), since it is to do with biological sex specifically. BobEret (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret Did you read how sex defines male and female? Also the article on sex literally says this “ In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex.”CycoMa (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend y’all read this. It gives a simple definition.CycoMa (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. The lede in sex says sex can be "typically male or female". But importantly, *I don't think it matters* whether we decide that intersex is a third category or not. The point of an outline (as far as I know) is to provide an overview of the topic. Intersex is obviously part of the theme of LGBT topics generally (it's even in the LGBT series template), and it is definitely to do with sex. Tamzin's suggestion to combine the "Sex" and "Bodies" categories would also solve this problem: including endosex and intersex will make it less likely that anyone thinks we are taking a stand either way. To be clear: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you - I'm saying that no matter whether intersex is a distinct category, it is a topic related to sex and LGBT issues, so it should be in the outline. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret read all the way down in sex, it states
” Approximately 95% of animal species are dioecious (also referred as gonochorism).[55] In gonochoric species, individuals are either male or female throughout their lives.[56][42]”
Just read the article on gonochorism it explains what gonochorism means.
You keep arguing that bodies is problematic yet y’all keep arguing to fix the issue is by combining it with sex. Doing that doesn’t fix the issue in the slightest, it brings more confusion and can cause people to be mislead.CycoMa (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly feel like I’m repeating myself here nonstop.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I don't want to get off track. The way I see it here, there are three distinct questions. 1: Should intersex be in the outline at all? 2: Should intesex be in the sex section? 3: Should we rename the Bodies section, or combine it? I think the consensus seems to be that intersex should be in here somewhere. For question 2, I want to stress that I am not taking a position on whether intersex is a sex. I'll admit that I'm a new user, so I don't have a full understanding of all the wiki policies, but I've had a look at WP:OUTLINE. It says: "Where the subtopics are placed in the taxonomy shows how they relate to the other topics and to the overall subject." So the question is, where in the taxonomy of LGBT issues does "intersex" go? I'm suggesting that intersex is a sub-category of **topics relating to the topic of sex**, which is the information an outline provides. By means of comparison, in Outline of the United States, "Crime in the United States" is placed within the "Law" category. Crime is obviously not a type of law, and the article talks about more than just the legal aspects of crime, because crime is a **topic** relating to the **topic** of law. In the same way, intersex is a topic relating to the overall topic of sex. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Absolutely yes to 1 and 2, for mainly the reasons you stated. I would be fine with keeping the category at Sex with Male, Female, Intersex, and Endosex included. The implication is not that all four are distinct sexes, but that all four are terms that are best understood in the context of a broader conversation about sex. I am honestly neutral on the inclusion of "...and physiology" in the section name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret all I am saying is that putting it under sex doesn’t really help. I can understand the issue of being a new user, honest to god Wikipedia has many rules, at times I have a hard time understanding them all.
But, here on Wikipedia we present mainstream views from various scholars. And it is very clear by looking at articles like sex and gonochorism there is only two sexes in most animal species (including humans). That’s not original research, the article on sex cites a source written by four Japanese biologists from 2018, that source says all mammals are gonochoric. Gonochorism by its definition literally means a species has either males or females.CycoMa (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I think we're having slightly different conversations. I am not disagreeing with you on the biology (and by no means am I claiming to know better than the sex article). I am making a suggestion about the information structure in this outline. Intersex and endosex seem to me to be topics that are related to sex. Intersex, for example, is mentioned in the sex article: "In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex" Do you agree that they are topics that are related to sex? If you don't agree, it would really help me if you could explain why you don't think intersex and endosex are related to the topic of sex? BobEret (he/him) (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BobEret gonochorism literally means. “gonochorism is a sexual system where there are only two sexes and each individual organism is either male or female.[1][2]”. Also by the way I’m the one who written “In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex"

That’s what I am saying.CycoMa (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa. I am agreeing with you that this article is not the place for Wikipedia to take a decision either way. I am also not taking a position either way. I am saying that it doesn't matter whether intersex is a category of sex, or a health condition, or anything else. I am suggesting that because in an outline, related topics are grouped together, we should group the topic of intersex within the wider topic of sex, since it is undoubtedly related to sex. Even in the quote that you wrote, "a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex", it is clear that intersex, as a theme, is within the wider theme of sex - including sexual categories, conditions relating to sex, and so on. Do you agree that intersex is related to the topic of sex? If you don't, why not? To be clear, this is not a question about the status of intersex, it is a question about the taxonomy of this issue within the wider structure of LGBT issues. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret okay fine, but at least put Endosex, Intersex, male, and female all under sex to avoid people having confusion.CycoMa (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_LGBT_topics&oldid=1198709662"