Talk:Bæddel and bædling/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tenpop421 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Generalissima: I will be reviewing this article this week. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment from an outsider. The article elides Bell's basic observations (p. 19) that bædlings could be children and sex between bædlings could be pederastic. Urve (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And, FWIW, the statement
Bæddel and bædling are Old English terms referring to non-normative sexual or gender identities
is an anachronism. Urve (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)- Oh, thank you for the comments! By anachronism, do you mean that I should say they were Old English terms? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- No; I think present tense is fine. The problem is the idea that these terms describe 'sexual identities'. Bell, for instance, correctly understands these terms as descriptions of people based on activity, and does not describe them in terms of internal self-identification. By way of comparison, it is like saying the word 'sodomite' is a sexual identity because it's based on sexual behavior. That is an anachronism because, depending on one's view, sexual identity and orientation were not developed in Europe until the nineteenth century; prior to this, men having sex with men did not confer any identity. 'Sodomite' (like bædling) is not a sexual identity -- 'homosexual' may be but that progressed in a different historical manner. The prior description of these terms as "non-normative categories of sex or gender" is more correct, IMO. I have no view on describing them as 'gender identities' but it probably faces similar timing problems. Urve (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh that's a good point. I initially described them as categories, and I think I'll just put the phrasing back at that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies! That was a change I made prior to deciding to review the page. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh that's a good point. I initially described them as categories, and I think I'll just put the phrasing back at that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- No; I think present tense is fine. The problem is the idea that these terms describe 'sexual identities'. Bell, for instance, correctly understands these terms as descriptions of people based on activity, and does not describe them in terms of internal self-identification. By way of comparison, it is like saying the word 'sodomite' is a sexual identity because it's based on sexual behavior. That is an anachronism because, depending on one's view, sexual identity and orientation were not developed in Europe until the nineteenth century; prior to this, men having sex with men did not confer any identity. 'Sodomite' (like bædling) is not a sexual identity -- 'homosexual' may be but that progressed in a different historical manner. The prior description of these terms as "non-normative categories of sex or gender" is more correct, IMO. I have no view on describing them as 'gender identities' but it probably faces similar timing problems. Urve (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for the comments! By anachronism, do you mean that I should say they were Old English terms? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And, FWIW, the statement