Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Started a WP page where we can talk about homosexual related issues. This came to mind with regard to recent discussion about male/female name changes. There are other issues to discuss I'm sure.

It's important to centralize these kinds of discussions in order for us to have a clear understanding of the overall plan for WPs way of editing, and to generalize these discussions rather than have them be localized to areas of "LGBT studies," which ostensibly includes just Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgenders, and no one else. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this. What is wrong with this talk page here as the central place for discussing LGBTetc issues? Also, "homosexual and related" seems like a bad choice of name, potentially offensive to bi and trans people. "LGBT" as the general acronym is pretty well-established on Wikipedia and in the wider world. And this WikiProject is open to everyone; it's not limited to LGBT people. - htonl (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the title is offensive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that I've started a comment thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Homosexual_and_related_guidelines_and_policies_-_meta_page_for_stating_site-wide_consensus_on_GL_and_related_issues. Sportfan, I don't see how this title listed should be regarded as "offensive," as it does not use inappropriate language or slang, and rather uses pretty standard terms like "homosexual" and "guidelines" and "policies." Hton, I do not agree that containing all meta-discussion within the confines of a particular WikiProject is the right thing to do for any area where editorial policy needs to be discussed. In all but the most general cases editorial policy needs to be discussed with a broader audience, in the spirit of inclusiveness. I am crossposting this comment at the above WT:VPP talk page thread, where I will elucidate further. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 02:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:LGBT has never been specifically for LGBT people (just as WikiProject Christianity isn't just for Christians, WikiProject Judaism isn't just for Jews, etc. etc.). Quite how someone would find it difficult to post on WP:LGBT but would be happy to post on Wikipedia:Homosexual and related guidelines and policies isn't very clear to me. Also, "male/female name changes" are a trans-related issue rather than a homosexual-related issue. The conflation of questions of gender identity and questions of sexual orientation/identity has long been a source of confusion for people: let's not add to that. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(comment from Village pump thread) Rejecting LGBT, all world-wide used acronym, suggests a troubling agenda, (note: this was in response to this version of the above comments) the obvious parallel is that we would not entitle an internal page under other offensive terms (fill in your own offensive examples here). We do use those terms on Wikipedia in limited ways to show how culture has evolved, and homosexual is an antiquated term when referring to people as a general rule. You'll find that most newer generations use a variety of self-descriptor terms but generally LGBT is an acceptable non-offensive catch-all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to walk away from this for a while, I fail to see what is broken and needs to be fixed/why a new page is needed at all. I also don't understand why there is two conversations about the same thing at two different spots. And I certainly don't understand why LGBT is now not considered an acceptable title term for an internal page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't see the benefit of such a page, especially given the 1950s name, narrow scope and very unclear reasoning. No offense, but your post at the village pump makes very little sense. What problem is it that you are trying to solve that is not already addressed with this project, or in our various content policies and guidelines? - MrX 04:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I also don't see the difference in the purpose of your new page as opposed to this one. "Homosexual and related guidelines" also doesn't sound proper. It's unnecessary in my opinion. Teammm talk
    email     04:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Homosexual and related guidelines and policies.- MrX 04:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as someone who doesn't identify with either LGBT nor homosexual (but is also not heterosexual), I see the premise as misguided and I don't agree that LGBT excludes non-LGBT people from contributing (rationale stated here). "Homosexual" as a person or behaviour refers to only 2 or 3 of those groups, and it's clinical, somewhat pejorative, and dated. I don't regard LGBT as in any way a perfect term, it's an ugly portmanteau, and its replacements are little better, but it at least signifies what it means: issues relevant to lesbians, gay men, bisexual and trans people. What actually does a policy on homosexuality have to do with a discussion on male/female name changes, unless one is assuming that trans people are intrinsically homosexual? Nsw2042 (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The introduction to this project page says ″Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies! We're a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and Queer studies topics. WikiProject LGBT studies brings Wikipedia users of various sexual orientations, gender identities, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of LGBT content across Wikipedia″. I don't see how this excludes non-LGBT people - this project isn't for LGBT folks only, its for everyone to talk about LGBT issues and improve coverage: exactly what you suggest is needed. Therefore why not bring up any issues you have here? Acb314 (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters by sexual behavioral attribute

This category seems designed to associate LGBT characters with sexual behaviors like pedophilia, rape and incest. I've twice removed content on fictional intersex characters from the category (intersex is more a matter of biology), but I was wondering how others felt about the category and the associations it promotes? I'm not comfortable with it myself. Nsw2042 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The category has an overly complicated title, and has subcategories which seem to have little or nothing to do with that title. For instance, how is "transsexual" a sexual behaviour? I suggest the category be replaced with something like Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation, and the subcategories which aren't unambiguously sexual orientations should be removed or moved elsewhere in the category hierarchy. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I would nominate for deletion/renaming. Those discussions usually have good outcomes and suggestions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to urgently put this up for CFD, as it is frankly extremely offensive and wrong-headed in its various tacit assumptions. It's trying to reposition categories about LGBT identities as categories about sexual deviancies.Zythe (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We have Category:Fictional LGBT characters as a parent to the relevant categories, so I would suggest that this one should be simply deleted.--Trystan (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll nominate this for deletion. Thanks for the feedback; it looks like there's a common view so far. Ah, Sportfan5000 got there first. Nsw2042 (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the nomination made is problematic, as it doesn't take account of the existing Category:Fictional LGBT characters. In my experience, this reduces the possibility of consensus. I'd appreciate it if Sportfan5000 could amend the proposal. Nsw2042 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the Twinkle function! Category:Fictional characters by sexual behavioral attribute, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Wikipedia article and Arbitration committee

This article discusses the rename of the Chelsea Manning article and the Arbitration committee:

It could be a useful source. Talk:Chelsea_Manning already notes the Guardian article as one of the media organization articles that mentions the Chelsea Manning article. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Jerry L. Fielding

Hi. I've just created Jerry L. Fielding's page. Of course I only heard about him because of the Duck Dynasty controversy. Would any of you like to help me expand his page, by adding more info and then perhaps creating a sub-section about the Duck Dynasty fiasco? Btw most state senators have their own page, so it makes sense for him to have one, regardless of the incident.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, the notability rules for politicians are that any past or present member of a federal, state or provincial legislature is a valid article topic. I don't know enough about him to really contribute much, but he is indeed notable enough for an article regardless of the whole Duck Dynasty thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles

Pass a Method recently moved the following articles:

Homosexuality in sports to LGBT people in sports

Homosexuality in sports in the United States to LGBT people in sports in the United States

Homosexuality in American football to LGBT people in American football

Homosexuality in association football to LGBT people in association football

On his talk page in 2012, he was advised against doing these types of moves, with SarekOfVulcan, LadyofShalott and Adjwilley doing the advising. There was also an extensive discussion about these types of moves, which took place at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, where editors stated that using "LGBT" in place of "homosexuality" in the article title is sometimes okay, but other times it is not, and that these types of moves should be discussed first. Going by what the sources state was also mentioned.

Since Pass a Method is still making article moves such as these, and without discussion, I have brought this matter up here for this WikiProject to assess whether or not intervention is needed on this matter and/or whether or not any of these latest article moves are appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the previous discussion and the present one is the previous ones were religion-related. the current ones are related to sports. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussions concern replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles in general, no matter what your topic focus was at the time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally, any move which might be controversial should go through the WP:Requested moves process. This says "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." If the mover has been informed that such moves are controversial, he should use the process, and be sanctioned if he refuses to do so.
In this case, it looks as if the first two moves were clearly inappropriate as the articles discuss the issue of homosexuality in sports, with individuals used as examples. These should be reverted and the mover told to use the process, this is in accordance with WP:BRD.
The other two moves may even be an improvement, as those articles consist of bigraphical summaries of relevant players. The mover should have followed the process here too, but my guess is there is no point in these cases of making a fuss just for the sake of it. --Mirokado (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really a sports follower, so someone else might have to tell me if this is a valid concern or not - it seems that there is a lot of news when an athlete comes out as gay, but does it also happen if an athlete comes out as bisexual? If so, "LGBT issues" may be a better title word. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 nails it exactly: "The discussions concern replacing 'homosexuality' with 'LGBT"' in article titles in general, no matter what your topic focus was at the time." LadyofShalott 17:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the first two article moves, per Mirokado's suggestion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

While I think all of the moves are improvements, they should have been done through the RM process.--Trystan (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that it's trying to put a larger blanket term in places where they do not belong. Despite the fact that the Ls, the Gs, the Bs and the Ts have many concerns in common, that does not make them a single group, and attempts to place them as one can be ill-fitting. Just as we wouldn't change every article about Jews or about Sikhs to being labeled about "religious minorities", so we should look at the article Homosexuality in American football and realize that there is no L, no B, and no T currently in the article, and given what I believe is the complete lack of any female professional American football players in history, there aren't likely to be any L issues in the foreseeable future. Such moves need to have the individual article considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: We shouldn't be waving a flag of inclusivity when our articles aren't. For example, LGBT people in association football only discusses gay players, and not trans players. And there is scope for discussion of trans players; for example, there was coverage regarding the amateur women's player Aeris Houlihan, who was banned from playing based on advice that even the FA admitted was outdated. Sceptre (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a lot of "Homosexuality in" articles that would be better if they were more inclusive. Generally trans, bisexual, and interest issues, are often conflated to being homosexual ones when they are more accurately just related. But for many subject areas it would be more informative to have, for instance, LGBT themes in children's literature instead of the more narrow, Homosexual themes in children's literature. Of course when you have an article, Homosexual behavior in animals, it would seem unnatural to title it LGBT behavior in animals, but guess what? Animals do exhibit transgender and bisexual behaviors. I guess I support moving many of these articles but if Pass A Method is doing this in mass quantities perhaps they could be encouraged to instead do smaller groups at a time and maybe post to this page first to see if there is any cause for concern. I think that might address the dual concerns of letting them be "bold" and also making sure more people are aware of the change(s). Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a lot of the "Homosexuality in X"/"Homosexuality and X" articles would probably be better named "Sexual orientation and X". I agree with Sceptre though: we shouldn't be using "LGBT" if the topic of the article is just about sexual orientation. We do have a lot of articles titled things like LGBT rights in the United Kingdom, LGBT rights in Europe (etc.) that cover both issues related to LGB people and issues related to gender identity and to transgender people (like, say, non-discrimination, access to gender transition health services, ability to change legal documentation and so on). If it covers both, then lean towards LGBT. If it only covers LGB, lean towards "sexual orientation" so as not to conflate bisexuality with homosexuality. There may be reasons to title articles "Homosexuality and X", but we should consider "Sexual orientation and X": it may fit better in some cases, in others it might not. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sportfan5000 and Tom Morris, as noted here (though mostly indirectly) at the Homosexual behavior in animals talk page, the term homosexuality covers bisexuality; it covers any same-sex romance and/or same-sex sexual activity. To use "sexual orientation" in place of "homosexuality" is not a good suggestion if the article is only about same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction. Furthermore, the term sexual orientation is taken to mean a deep-rooted sexual attraction significantly more than it is taken to apply to sexual behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Each article must be treated on its merits. The title must reflect the content. It would be ludicrous to have an article about homosexuality in a male only sport with an LGBT title. There is no one size fits all answer. Political correctness does not trump wisdom. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that each title needs to be considered separately, considering the scope of the article and which aspects of LGBT actually apply to it. In the examples given above, Homosexuality is not at all the right word to set out that scope. We aren't talking about "same-sex attraction and sexual behaviour in sports"; while I'm sure that topic would make for a salacious read, it would not likely be an encyclopedic article. It sounds very odd to talk about the personal characteristic generally when what we are referring to is participation by people with that characteristic; we wouldn't have Femaleness in sports or Canadian citizenship in sports. A discussion of each article individually is needed to find the best title.--Trystan (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Trystan, what you propose comes down to use of something like "Homosexual people in sports." However, considering what was discussed in the #Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual section above and what has been discussed before on that topic (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual), would it be good to use "homosexual" in that way? Maybe using a "Gay men in sports" (or "Gay and bisexual men in sports"), "Lesbian women in sports" (or "Lesbian and bisexual women in sports") or "Gay men and lesbian women in sports" title would be better? Or even "LGB people in sports" (meaning without the T until the T is also covered)? Either way, with regard to my title suggestions, there isn't yet any need to have separate articles about gay and/or bisexual men in sports and lesbian women in sports; those aspects can and should be covered in one article until a WP:Split is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Moves of this sort need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. One size does not fit all when it comes to such terminology; much depends on the focus of each individual article. Ideally, retitling would be proposed on each article's talk page first so that the editors most familiar with the topic can weigh in. Rivertorch (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cultural_history_of_the_buttocks

Can someone please add a ref and revert this ridiculous removal. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Macau

This article needs fixing; I brought this up recently in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not to place Xena and Gabrielle in Category:Fictional LGBT characters

There is a WP:Edit war going on between Jerry Pepsi (linked his user talk page because he doesn't yet have a user page) and VoluntarySlave at the Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) article about whether or not to place Gabrielle in the LGBT category; see the start of that edit war here and the latest edit involved in that edit war here. If VoluntarySlave had not recently stopped the edit war, they could have been blocked for WP:Edit warring at any moment. Jerry Pepsi's argument is that Gabrielle should not be placed in the LGBT category because the character never identified as lesbian or bisexual. VoluntarySlave's argument is that she should be placed in the LGBT category because she is identified as a LGBT character by media sources. This matter has also been discussed before; see Talk:Xena#Category:Fictional bisexuals or Category:Fictional LGBT characters? and Talk:Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess)#Category:Fictional bisexuals or Category:Fictional LGBT characters?. And Jerry Pepsi has started a new discussion about this at the Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) talk page, though, except for this source that VoluntarySlave added, I'm not sure what sources VoluntarySlave is referring to with regard to the article supporting Gabrielle as LGBT. The significant majority of those sources are WP:Primary sources, and WP:Primary sources should not be used to draw a conclusion not clearly supported by such sources.

That stated, I am in agreement with VoluntarySlave that while Xena and Gabrielle should not be placed in the lesbian or bisexual category since their characters were not (never) established in the series as lesbian or bisexual and since there is much debate about their sexual orientations, they should be placed in the LGBT category because they are identified by media as either LGBT icons or simply as LGBT characters (as in, what one of my bothers would say, representing an aspect of LGBT). Some of the media have also identified them as either lesbian or bisexual, but they usually do not; if discussing the characters' sexual orientations, they usually debate what their sexual orientations are, not definitively state that they are lesbian or bisexual. And even if they were to do that, it would be dubious to label Xena and Gabrielle as such when the series intentionally toyed around with their sexual orientations/sexualities but never established them as fact (unless you count Xena quite clearly seeming to have been sexually attracted to men and women). It is common that Wikipedia places fictional characters in the LGBT category when those characters' sexual orientations are highly speculated and/or debated as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Until someone changes it, Category:Fictional LGBT characters states, "A category of fictional LGBT-identified characters appearing in films, television, shows, theater, books, comics, music, and video games." Notice "LGBT-identified," not "self-identified as LGBT."

Here are sources that support Xena and Gabrielle as LGBT: AfterEllen.com calls them lesbian icons and notes what is called "the lesbian subtext" of the show (the creators of the series intentionally leaving hints that Xena and Gabrielle are romantically/sexually involved). So does this The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders, Volume 3 source (page 1356). And this Globalization, Cultural Identities, and Media Representations source (page 91) states: "The show's producers have stated that they do intend to 'blur the lines' of the characters' sexuality ... it is hard to reach any other conclusion than that Xena and Gabrielle are a lesbian couple." This source (page 111) states, "Xena and Gabrielle conform, in some respects, to a stereotypical 'butch and femme' model of lesbian. Xena is tall, athletic, taciturn and ... Often, the storyline itself entails that the characters be read as queer." And there are more sources noting such things on Google Books once you get past the citations to Wikipedia (WP:Circular).

I'm not sure where to centralize this discussion (by that, I mean that it concerns two articles and it's not ideal to have the same discussion on two talk pages), so I brought it here for that and to finally get this matter settled. I would directly involve myself in these articles, but my brother (Halo Jerk1) has recently edited them and he has the same aforementioned view about categorizing these characters that I do (see here, for example, and note that he is the one I was referring to in my second paragraph above), so it would not be wise that I get involved in that way (though I have edited one or more of these articles -- Xena, Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) and Xena: Warrior Princess -- before he began editing Wikipedia). So if any of you at this WikiProject weigh in on this matter, would you be so kind as to link to this discussion there at the character talk pages? Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Either my above comment is WP:Too long, didn't read for some members here or no one other than the ones already involved in this topic are interested in it. Or both. Either way, if the edit warring between Jerry Pepsi and VoluntarySlave continues at the Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) article and starts up at the Xena article, I will likely report this at WP:ANI (in far less words while linking to this section). Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I truly do not understand how "don't put characters that aren't identified in their fiction as LGBT in an 'LGBT characters' category" is in any way controversial or ambiguous. And the cases of Xena and Gabrielle are no more complicated just because the TV people did some fanservice in a few episodes. The characters never verbally identified as anything other than heterosexual or as explicitly romantically or sexually interested in each other or any other woman. The characters were never explicitly shown as being sexually or romantically involved with anyone other than men. That AfterEllen or whoever called the characters lesbian icons or whatever would be great material for a section in their articles discussing their impact on LGBT or specifically lesbian culture, or even a Xena as lesbian icon article, but being important to lesbians, even being really, really important to them, doesn't make the characters lesbians, any more than the reams of slash or around every pair of male characters in popular culture or Shipping Reports they appear in makes them gay. "They look like lesbians" is not simply a faulty basis for categorizing, it is an insulting one based on stereotypes. Again, the dividing line seems pretty clear. If the fiction states they are LGBT, they go in the category. If it doesn't, they don't. Not at all sure where the breakdown is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
And I truly don't understand your argument on this matter, not fully anyway; neither does Trystan apparently, as seen here, here and here. As has been explained to you, a character does not need to have been identified in their fiction as LGBT to be placed in Category:Fictional LGBT characters. And we have enough fictional characters that are placed in gay, lesbian or bisexual categories simply based on behavior when they never self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual and/or were not identified by others in the series or film that way. Xena and Gabrielle never identified as heterosexual either, partly because such sexual identities did not exist at that time, and partly because the creators of the show intentionally left hints (many, not just a few, hints) that Xena and Gabrielle are romantically/sexually involved. And no one argued that Xena and Gabrielle should be placed in Category:Fictional LGBT characters because "[t]hey look like lesbians"; I fail to see how "[t]hey look like lesbians"; if you are referring to the "Xena and Gabrielle conform, in some respects, to a stereotypical 'butch and femme' model of lesbian." commentary from one of the noted sources above, that is simply the source opining a stereotypical model that the source happens to feel fits Xena and Gabrielle. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That takes a rather narrow view of both the nature of fictional characters and the purpose of categories. There is no objective reality to fictional characters, they exist at some point between portrayal and interpretation. We need to look at both in order to write an article about them. In this case, there is no single, unambiguous portrayal or interpretation one way or the other. But the mere fact that this is discussed so much in analyses of the show means that anyone looking for fictional LGBT characters is very likely going to want to look at that section in the Xena article to see how she has been interpreted and portrayed as a lesbian character. Much more likely than a character with a less ambiguous but also less social significance as a lesbian character.--Trystan (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well said, Trystan. We mustn't lose sight of the purpose of these categories (or even the ones identifying historical figures who existed before modern concepts of sexual orientation developed) for the navigational use of readers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh Jesus, what a load of crap. Did Xena and Gabrielle ever fuck a chick? No. Did Xena and Gabrielle ever express interest in fucking a chick? No. XENA AND GABRIELLE ARE NOT LESBIANS. All the grad students in all the world debating how many lesbian angels can dance on the head of a pin doesn't change that simple fact. And facts are supposed to matter to an encyclopedia. Facts, not wishes, not fanservice, not "hints", not "Fantasizing about getting banged by Xena gets me wet". Facts. And the simple fact is that the characters are not LGBT. Full stop.
  • If other fictional characters are classed as LGBT without supporting evidence in the fiction, they should be removed from the categories. Error should be corrected, not compounded, and one mistake cannot justify another mistake.
  • Readers are not served by putting lies in categories. Shame on you for suggesting it.
  • But of course TRUTH makes no difference in Wikipedia when there's more than one person who wants to service the lie. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked, "Did Xena and Gabrielle ever fuck a chick? Did Xena and Gabrielle ever express interest in fucking a chick?" My answer to that is: According to various reliable sources noting the lesbian subtext between Xena and Gabrielle, they have expressed interest in having sex with each other...and have had sex with each other. No one in this discussion is arguing that Xena and Gabrielle are lesbians. If we were, then Category:Fictional lesbians would surely factor into this. People in this discussion are arguing why Xena and Gabrielle fit in Category:Fictional LGBT characters; you clearly disagree with that view. However, you suggested here and here that sources be added to support Gabrielle as LGBT before she is listed in the LGBT category at the Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) article. And now that sources have been provided (and pointed to) on that matter, the sources are not enough for you; so either you never cared what the sources state on this topic or you were requesting that sources state that Xena and Gabrielle self-identify within the series as lesbian or bisexual. Either that, or you want a source that specifically states "Xena and Gabrielle are LGBT characters"; sources like those exist as well. Whatever the case, like I stated, such self-identities did not exist back then (the time frame that the series takes place in). Neither did the heterosexual identity. And while the series took liberties with history and sometimes infused modern aspects, the aforementioned sexual identity labels are one aspect they didn't infuse. So any source stating what Xena and Gabrielle personally identified as, sexual orientation-wise, would not at all be accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't greatly care about this issue, but I think it's not unreasonable to include the LGBT categories. The Gabrielle article states that, "Xena and Gabrielle's reincarnations get married" in one episode, which sounds lesbian enough to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point about the marriage, because it's an episode that directly portrays Xena and Gabrielle as romantically involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator is referring to what is stated in this section. I couldn't remember what episode it is that Xena and Gabrielle are married in, so I researched it. The sourcing in the Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess) article needs fixing on this matter, because it's not "The Xena Scrolls" episode that the marriage happens in (someone must have added on to what was already sourced in that paragraph). Like the Battling Bard of Potidaea section in that article states, "their souls are together throughout time." In the episode "Deja Vu All Over Again," which is set in modern day, it is eventually revealed that Xena has been reincarnated in "Joxer's body"; Gabrielle was reincarnated in her "original body" (the body she had when she met Xena on the series). At the end of this episode, it is reaffirmed that they are soulmates, they reminisce and begin kissing. In the sequel to this episode, "Soul Possession," partly set in the modern world, they are married and Xena is eventually returned to her correct body (though Xena and Gabrielle's romantic/sexual involvement as a female-female couple is still not physically shown onscreen).
On a side note, just to put the lesbian subtext matter into better context, Xena and Gabrielle never would have been portrayed as romantically and/or sexually involved with each other in any way if it hadn't been for the coming-on theme (opening credits, 0:41/42 seconds into it) showing a moment that can be interpreted as Xena being sexually intimate with a woman; she is actually being sexually intimate with Draco in this scene, but only the side of his head/body are shown, with a very minimal view of his face; because he has long hair, some people, including lesbian and bisexual women, thought it was a woman and that Xena might have female lovers. This helped spawn a large lesbian fanbase, and the creators of the series started intentionally infusing lesbian subtext into the show to cater to/hold on to that fanbase. And this is not my WP:Original research; it was stated by Xena's portrayer, Lucy Lawless, and a few other reliable-source commentators. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Acrophobia (game)#Background

It appears to me that the background info on the game acrophobia is dealing with a trans woman in a way that seems to me to be inappropriate. Would someone with experience in trans issues please have a look? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Articles for Creation/Christopher Karas

Greetings WikiProject LGBT studies! May I please request some experienced eyes over at Draft:Articles for Creation/Christopher Karas? The article was created, then deleted, then re-created, then (after answering a confusing {{help me}} request), I nominated it for deletion again because the subject as presented seemed unremarkable as there was only one reference. The article came across as a kid standing up to "the man" at his school and that was all. The article was eventually moved into draft space. There is a strong push by users/sockpuppets/meatpuppets "Workingharderthanever" and IP 99.228.99.46 to restore and keep the article alive, but rather than fight with them, I thought I should float a request for help toward this WikiProject in case y'all have a different take on the kid's notability. I appreciate any extra eyes you can donate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lot of sources about the incident, I think I would focus on just that first and see if can work in a biography. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Two articles under dispute

Adding rumors about Aaron Schock and main subjects of Outrage (2009 film) are under discussion in talk pages. Find RFC tags, so you will be at the right place. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's see , , , WP:BLP invoked to "protect" public officials by omitting from their articles mention of notable reports made by multiple reliable sources across the Internet, TV, radio, and print media . . . if you've seen one such RfC, you've seen 'em all. The specifics vary but the dispute is an old one that has never been satisfactorily resolved and probably won't be—at least not until some more years pass and there's significant turnover among WP's editor corps. Rivertorch (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I get my page updated

Hello -- I'm the editor in chief of ManABoutWorld, the #1 gay travel magazine for iPad only. My current Wikipedia entry is out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Salvato

I can't update it myself. Can you help? Another wikipedia rep suggested I reach out to you since I 'may be prominent enough' :)

This information was accurate several years ago. It has changed considerably.

After PlanetOut I was editor in chief of ManAboutWorld till 2009. citations: http://nytravfest.com/2013/02/27/speakers-ed-salvato/ http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/best-gay-honeymoon-destinations

Currently:

Known as a “global LGBT travel expert,” Ed Salvato has spent the last 14 years in the world of LGBT travel and tourism on just about every angle you can imagine: editorial, marketing, communications, product development, sponsorships, events and more. He is widely regarded both for his consumer advocacy and industry leadership. But he is proudest of his work as editor-in-chief for a dozen years of the world’s most authoritative gay travel magazines and websites, including OUT&ABOUT, Out Traveler, PlanetOut Travel, Advocate Travel and Gay.com Travel. To the surprise of many who only know him as a writer (and who watch him use his calculator app for the most basic math), Ed graduated from Harvard College with a degree in mathematics and economics and received his MBA from Northeastern University in marketing research. He’s visited 50 countries 6 continents and laid his head in more beds than you can possibly imagine. Follow Ed on Twitter @edsalvato Connect with Ed at edsalvato.com and follow his travels visually on Instagram @manaboutworld.

This info is on our blog: http://www.manaboutworld.com/ ?portfolio=ed-salvatoeditor-in-chief 

Can you help me update it

Jan 9, 2014 208.39.146.133 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible studies/Journal sources

If anyone wants some sources to use, I found some that could be useful:

  • Hudepohl, Adam D., BA, Dominic J. Parrott, PhD, and Amos Zeichner, PhD. "Heterosexual men's anger in response to male homosexuality: effects of erotic and non-erotic depictions of male-male intimacy and sexual prejudice." Journal of Homosexuality (J Homosex). 2010;57(8):1022-38. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.503511. At PubMed. PMID 20818528, PMC 2936486. - Info page at NIH, Taylor and Francis info page, Document at PubMed PMC
  • Chivers, Meredith L., Michael C. Seto, Martin L. Lalumière, Ellen Laan, and Teresa Grimbos. "Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: a meta-analysis." Archives of Sexual Behavior (Arch Sex Behav). 2010 February; 39(1): 5–56. PMID 20049519, PMC 2811244. Published online 2010. PMC Link, Info page at NIH, Info page at SpringerLink, PDF at SpringerLink (Archive)
  • Adams, Henry E., Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr (University of Georgia). "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" (Archive) Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1996, Vol. 105, No. 3, p. 440-445. 0021-843X.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Novice needs help at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Meghdhanushya — The Colour of Life (first film in Gujarat, India, on LGBT issues)

There's a draft at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Meghdhanushya — The Colour of Life that stalled out in April, and was recently re-submitted by another IP with no real improvement. It's a great topic and should be published, but I'm not sure we're going to get any further improvements by the originator anytime soon, so this draft could lapse back into inactivity and deletion. If anyone wants to do a quick cleanup and footnoting, we can get this published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How do we refer to drag performers?

Regarding this edit. Willam Belli is male and identifies as such. His drag persona is female and identifies as such. In the Willam Belli article shouldn't it state "he" when referring him to Willam himself, and not his female persona? He's not transgender and identifying as a woman as far as i know. I haven't reverted the edit above due to my uncertainty. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Drag queens are not women or even trans women; they are men and must be referred to as he/him. Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware they're men, but in character he refers to himself as a woman. Do i revert all instances or leave the sections in character as "her" and "she". Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

William Belli is clearly male and Cherry Peck is female. Each should be referred to by the appropriate pronouns. A decent example is Miss Coco Peru, the creation of Clinton Leupp, with the interesting difference that the WP entry is for the drag character to which the creator's name redirects. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As i assumed =D (Cherry Peck is Willam's drag persona right?)
Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Controversial nature of the term" section at Queer article

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Queer#Controversial nature of the term section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for FLC

  1. Dan Savage bibliography
  2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and psychology article

More eyes from this WikiProject, meaning other than mine, are needed on the Homosexuality and psychology article. I state that because IP 203.26.73.5 has tampered with a quote in a deceptive way and has added Mark Regnerus material to the article, among other problematic things. Those who are not familiar with Mark Regnerus, read the Wikipedia article about him (note: the Mark Regnerus link is a redirect); that article will show you why many would not consider Regnerus a good source regarding homosexuality topics. I am not in the mood to WP:Edit war with this IP, at least not by myself. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:David Ogden Stiers

Recent editing compelled me into starting a new discussion about a matter that has been previously discussed. State your comments in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived inactive thread

I've archived an inactive thread to a subsection which was a notification about a discussion that was since closed. — Cirt (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Our hemisphere is quickly becoming one of the most gay-friendly territories in the world. It has far and beyond the most people living with access to marriage equality, not to mention the largest pride celebration on Earth.[1] But not everything is advancing in a positive direction. Almost a third of the 35 countries in the Americas criminalize homosexual relationsBut not everything is advancing in a positive direction. Almost a third of the 35 countries in the Americas criminalize homosexual relationsViolence and bullying against LGBT persons remain both too common and largely unpunished, even in those countries with otherwise progressive legal environmentsThis is our pick for the top LGBT stories - both positive and negative - from the Americas in 2013

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/LGBT%20flag%20sunlight.Innovative media strategies to raise LGBT awareness continued to emerge 2013. In January, activists launched "We are Jamaicans," a video series claiming that queer issues are part of the island's national identity. Some of Peru's most famous straight celebrities from sports, TV and politics posed as same-sex couples for billboards captioned "Love is not a crime." The government of Buenos Aires unveiled an interactive site called #ChauTabú (Ciao Taboo), geared towards young people, focusing on sexual health through videos and offering online doctor consultations. The Venezuelan film Pelo Malo (Bad Hair), a film about a mother's homophobic reaction to her son's hairstyle, won the highest prize of the San Sebastián International Film Festival and gave much to talk about in Venezuela.

Hawaiian culture article

Been doing a great deal of research on Hawaiian culture, history, genealogy and...well just about everything Hawaiian. After much time, I wonder if an article on "Homosexuality in historic Hawaiian culture" could be a decent addition to the project scope? It appears that we do not cover the history prior to 19th century. This could be a good addition to LGBT history in Hawaii as a stand alone.

It appears that the history has been somewhat pushed under the rug by the more conservative Christian Hawaiians and missionaries but the history is still there and while some recall the practice in horror, other sources simply discuss the situation as "matter of fact". There is even a King, Liloa, who is attributed to making the practice acceptable.

The Hawaiian "aikane " relationship is well documented. Many of the male royals had male Hawaiian aikane friendships even if they had several wives, but one King, Kamehameha III, had an Hawaiian aikane relationship that he briefly shared his rule with and never married another, male of female. He continued to meet with his friend even after he was exiled (the aikane lover) all the way to that persons death. I find a lot of good sources and wondered if this might gain some contributions from other interested project members?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

An article of interest to this project is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Recent edits to the lede are being discussed and more input is desired. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual versus gay, and Russian propaganda law

Could others please have a look at these changes? As far as I can see the vast majority of sources regarding Russia's 2013 law have referred to it as a "gay propaganda" issue, and have not dwelled on it being about protecting minors. Additionally I think using homosexual to refer to gay and lesbian people is largely considered pejorative. Any guidance is appreciated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP policy preferring "gay" over "homosexual". My view is that non-English speaker does not treat "homosexual" pejorative as Americans do. They (including me) tend to believe "gay" to be too colloquial for an encyclopedic article. If the source does use "homosexual" due to being translated from foreign language, there is no ground to cure this usage with "gay". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine if we were using just one source, or just quoting the law itself. Instead we have hundreds of media articles and the vast majority of English ones avoid using "homosexual." Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If the source straightly uses "gay" then there is no question needed at all. Maybe a heartfelt notice to the editor reverted by you. P.S. some source URLs regarding anti-gay issue are dead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We've been over gay vs. homosexual a few times at this WikiProject now, as recently as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual before this latest discussion. Some Americans and people of other countries consider homosexual to be pejorative when used as a noun and sometimes when used in other ways, and there are style guides that recommend using gay or lesbian as a noun in place of homosexual as a noun, but the term homosexual is still quite accepted as a noun, including in America. It may be, however, that America is especially sensitive to the term homosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, I almost only see homosexual, in place of gay in sources that are disparaging of LGBT people. In this case most of the sources use gay so I find the blowback misplaced. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think there is much of a basis on which one could conclude that gay is too colloquial for an encyclopedic article. It's found, usually as the preferred term, throughout both the academic and popular literature. It's not listed as current slang in either the OED or Webster's. It's the preferred subject heading under the internationally-applied Library of Congress Subject Headings.--Trystan (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, "homosexual" is a clinical term, not appropriate for use when labelling individual people or the LGBT community in daily real-world contexts; in reality, it's almost never appropriate for use in any context in which it doesn't have the "-ity" suffix attached to it. A person is "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", "transgender", "queer", etc., and the community as a whole is properly "LGBT" (or one of its permutations); "gay" isn't really encouraged in this context anymore, because it may be perceived as referring to gay men only, but it's not absolutely wrong per se. "Homosexual" is never appropriate usage in either context; Sportfan5000 is correct that virtually the only sources that still use it that way are doing so pejoratively. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not in this WikiProject, but hope you are able to help me. I'm male and cisgender and although I'm friendly towards transgender people, I'm not too good with gender politics. I'm really just interested in being friends with people regardless of their gender, rather than getting involved in politics, but I seem to have stumbled into a political issue, where it looks like Wikipedia may be causing problems for transgender people.

I've struggled to find the right place to turn to for help, so I'm really hoping that you can help me, or that you can point me at a group that can help me.

I've been following the work of an artist and game designer, called Jennell Jaquays, who just happens to be a transgender female. I've been trying to help find information to update her article, but the policies on biographies of transgender people are not as clear as I think they need to be. I've looked at MOS:IDENTITY and it is good at telling people to avoid using incorrect pronouns or job titles that indicate sex, but there seem to be a couple of loopholes that seem to be encouraging articles to stress the original gender of transgender people multiple times.

I've got some questions that I need experts to help me with:

  • Is it important/acceptable to have the birth name of a transgender person in the lead section (when transition is already covered later in the article)? Somebody brought this up on the article's talk page: Shouldn't the lead at least *mention* the name she's best known by?. I looked at MOS:IDENTITY and it was not totally clear on this, but I did point out that the old name redirects to the current article and that the old name was already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I now think that mentioning birth names in the lead section emphasises the "difference" transgender people have to people who stick with their birth name and goes against the "spirit" of MOS:IDENTITY.
  • Is it important/acceptable to have the phrase "assigned male at birth" or "assigned female at birth", in the part of an article that discusses when a transgender person was born and have that link over to an article on sex assignment? That seems a bit clinical and mechanical to me. Surely, if an article mentions that someone is transgender, the reader can follow the link and read what that means in another article. Do we need to be explaining the sexual development of people in minority groups, when that is not done for biographies of cisgender people?
  • Is it important/acceptable for infoboxes on the right side of articles to have special emphasis to show the birth name of transsexual people? In the article I was looking at, this means that both the top left and top right hand side of the page have emphasis on the name that Jennell had before her transition. That does not seem to be against the "law" of MOS:IDENTITY, but it all adds up to be against the spirit of that rule.

I do agree that readers searching for the old name need to find the article. The old name is important, because it was used on a lot of her work, but it seems to me that maybe we could have one mention of her old name, rather than lots of different hints that she is transgender. And having looked into this a bit, I see that this has been replicated on some (but not all) other biographies. There are editors, who believe that it is important to explain the birth name of transgender people. I believe they do it in good faith, but I think they may be doing transgender people a disservice. (I am also concerned that some transgender people seem to be getting added to categories that specify that they are transgender. I would not be concerned with categories that identify people as "transgender rights campaigners", but if someone is transgender and does not make a big deal out of it, I'm not sure it is notable enough to warrant them being categorised.)

Jennell has actually complained about the editing we are doing on her Wikipedia page on Facebook. See: And please, while you're at it, fix the rampant transphobia as well. Thanks! So, although I'm more interested in improving the coverage of her art and game design, I am very concerned that, as a community of editors, we are not handling this LGBT issue very well.

The Pronouns section of the talk page on the Jennell Jaquays article, highlighted four editors that thought that "he" should be used for all events before the transition of a transwoman, so I think that they were not aware of how MOS:IDENTITY works and were less able to find guidance than I was. I think this is "transignorance" rather than transphobia (and I'm assuming good faith in the editors working on the article I am concerned about), but I am aware enough to realise that discussion of the former gender of transexual people is something that can cause offence and distress both to those people and other transgender people. I know that I am way out of my depth with this issue and that I need to call upon experts that can give it the attention that it needs.

I tried to make an edit, to remove one of the mentions of her former name and another editor reverted my work. I've put back my original edit and created a section in the talk page called: Complaint of excessive focus on former gender by subject of this article. I'm hoping that will avoid an edit war over this, but if experts can step in and find the most acceptable way to get the information across, I would be very grateful.

But that would just fix one article, and not stop the same thing happening on other biographies. Is there any way that Wikipedia could have some sort of process to discuss issues caused by biographies having multiple sentences that remind us that a person happens to be transgender? Would it be possible to invite the opinions of transgender people (or groups of transgender people) just to ensure that Wikipedia is not being written off as "transphobic"? Big Mac (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Any questions in that essay that you disagree with the answers the essay mentions?? Feel free to explain whatever way you can why. Georgia guy (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"..some sort of process to discuss issues caused by biographies..." - the usual process is to post at WP:BLPN with your concerns. (And preferably WP:DIFFs.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
My personal take on that specific issue is that the former name is worth mentioning if the person was notable while living and working under that name. If the person was not notable before transition, then the old name essentially refers to a non-notable person and as such WP:Notable applies. Rhialto (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That is essentially the rule, yes. There are some people for whom we do have to mention their birth name, because they were already notable under that name before transitioning, and thus it would misrepresent the context of their notability to suppress it. (Some examples include Chelsea Manning, Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace and Alec Butler.) But if a person's notability is tied exclusively to their post-transition name, and thus it isn't essential for us to mention their former name, then the former name should be suppressed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds even if it can be sourced (and should be suppressed as unverifiable if it's sourced only to people claiming insider knowledge.) Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Please weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_Identity_-_proposal_on_names_used Rhialto (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Olympic protests of Russian anti-gay laws

Discussion has started on a possible title change for the article, any guidance would be appreciated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kansas House Bill 2453

Since I am neither highly knowledgeable in bill-writing or LGBT-related articles, would some people be able to improve this article when they get a chance, as it is a pending bill in Kansas that would allow for the unilateral discrimination of LGBTQ couples under the guise of religion. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Agender redirect discussion

The Agender redirect is being discussed; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18#Agender. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/javier-corrales/the-top-2013-lgbt-stories_b_4479986.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_47&oldid=1249345049"