Talk:Homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject LGBT studies     (Rated GA-Class) LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated GA-Class) Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy Sociology WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Homosexuality, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Homosexuality has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-July 2007 September 2007-May 2008

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 Use of the term 'LGBT' in this article distorts history 2 Africa and Azande society 3 Something wrong with the text 4 GA reassessment 5 Marriage and civil unions 6 Mental Health

[edit] Use of the term 'LGBT' in this article distorts history

This article contains sentences such as this, 'With the outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, many LGBT groups and individuals organized campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach, as well as to demand government support for these programs.'

This misrepresents history in two ways - first, the term 'LGBT' was not used in the early 1980s and thus there were no 'LGBT' groups then, second, I'm not sure that there is any evidence that transsexuals as a group had anything to do with organizing AIDS education (the T in LGBT stands for transsexuals). The use of terms like 'LGBT' should be cut back to the few cases where they are appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's common in scholarly work to refer to the LGBT population in the 1980s using the term "LGBT." See, e.g., [1]. And trans-rights activists/trans-inclusive organizations certainly were involved in responding to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s! (See, e.g., [2]). Fireplace (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is 'common in scholarly work' does not mean that it is correct. There is a serious misrepresentation of history involved here - one cannot refer to 'LGBT' groups for periods when the term was not used. It's wrong for the same reason that that it's wrong to say Stonewall began an 'LGBT' movement. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's propaganda to talk about the 'LGBT' community, as the article sometimes does. There is no such thing. Skoojal (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About your last point, the Oxford American Dictionary defines "community" in various ways, among them these three:

"A group of people having . . . a particular characteristic in common [as in] the scientific community";
"a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals";
"a similarity or identity".

Each of these is arguably applicable to the term "LGBT community". I'm not sure what your specific objection is or why you think the wording is "propaganda", but I looked at each instance where it appears in the article and couldn't see a particular problem.

I'm really unclear on your earlier point. Are you saying that something doesn't exist until it's named? Was there no intelligence or justice in the world before those terms entered the language? How about quasars or DNA? Rivertorch (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious that there is a 'feeling of fellowship with others' that would justify use of 'LGBT.' Far from it - bisexuals are not necessarily welcome to people in the gay community, lesbian women and gay men are not necessarily welcome in each other's communities, and transsexuals are not necessarily welcome among non-transsexuals. There is a lot of mutual hostility and no all embracing 'community.' Hence my use of the word propaganda. Skoojal (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for 'similarity or identity', this is also not applicable. It seems that one of the purposes of 'LGBT' is to suggest an equivalence between homosexuality and transsexualism, which are distinct conditions. 'A group of people having a particular characteristic in common' is wrong for the same reason. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that it's wrong to retroactively label people who may never have applied that label to themselves; especially one that didn't even exist at the time. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely what I mean. It's obviously wrong to try to re-write the past to try to make it conform to a current agenda. Skoojal (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we use retroactive labeling all the time. To label a community "LGBT" isn't to say its members necessarily self-identify or self-identified as such. As human knowledge increases and is more widely disseminated, we apply lots of terms to past people, events, and phenomena that wouldn't have been applied in their day, it seems to me. Rivertorch (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That the idea that people can be meaningfully or usefully characterized as 'LGBT' is knowledge, rather than say belief or opinion, is something that needs to be argued. It certainly is not obviously true; nor does the assumption of one group of scholars that it is true make it true. Skoojal (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people do use retroactive labeling all the time, but that doesn't make it scholarly or correct. It gives the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s, and that the associated cooperation between groups of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people was already established. I can't say I'm particularly knowledgable about the subject, but were there even transgender and bisexual groups organising campaigns to promote efforts in AIDS education, prevention, research, patient support, and community outreach in the 80s? --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For responses to each of these two points, see the citations I provided in my initial response to Skoojal. Fireplace (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you searched for the terms "transgender activism AIDS 1980s." That may confirm there were transgender activists against AIDS in the 80s, but still no mention of bisexually identified people, any organised cooperation amongst the four groups, or any mention of the acronym "LGBT." --G2bambino (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For bisexuals, see [3]. Regarding use of the term LGBT, it's uncontroversial that activists from those four groups have been politically aligned (with occasional schisms) since Stonewall. The term is commonly used to describe the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population in the 1980s in scholarly work. For coordination, see [4]. It's just shorthand -- it's not imposing a new conceptual framework (cf. using 'homosexual' to describe Socrates, which is problematic for that reason). Now, obviously there's room for a lot more to be said, including about the exclusion of bi and trans people from the mainstream gay and lesbian political agenda, the dominance within the gay and lesbian political agenda of issues disproportionately affecting white upper-middle class gay men, the impact of AIDS on various LGBT subcultures (trans sex workers, e.g.), etc. All that is well-documented, and just needs an impassioned editor to take up its cause. But this issue is making a mountain out of a molehill -- it's just shorthand, and it's widely used by the scholarly community. Fireplace (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving wishful thinking aside, 'with occasional schisms' is just not correct. In particular, it is not correct where transsexuals are concerned. There has been long-standing hostility between male-to-female transsexuals and lesbians, for instance; these groups are generally not allies at all, but enemies. Thus one can't honestly talk about an 'LGBT' community - it is an aspiration, not a reality. And to repeat myself, the use of a term in scholarly work does not prove that it is correct. Skoojal (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not really qualified to comment on how coherent the LGBT community was (or whether it was a community at all), but if consensus determines that it is, how about adding a footnote saying something like "although the term LGBT was not coined / did not come into widespread use until [date]"? That prevents the article from giving the impression that the acronym 'LGBT' existed in the 80s as G2bambino says. Given that clarification I see no problem in retroactive relabelling in itself: shall we cease referring to the "Ancient Greeks" since they never called themselves that? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'Consensus' can say what it likes, but in reality there is no such thing as the 'LGBT community'. Refering to the 'LGBT community' for periods when that term was not used has nothing in common with refering in English to 'the ancient Greeks.' There is no other term that can be used in English to describe the Greeks; there are other English terms that can be used to describe the so-called LGBT community. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be used as a backdated, general term? Obviously, if there were other elements such as SexRadical or SexRef which have since departed the LGBT movement, it needs noting. forestPIG 10:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the content of Wikipedia articles is decided by consensus, so if consensus 'says what it likes' then that's what we get.

What term do you propose instead of 'LGBT communties', Skoojal? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article could use any term that was actually used at the time to describe any phase of the gay movement. 'Gay and lesbian' would probably do just fine. If any particular phase of the movement involved transsexuals, then mention them, preferably with a cite to show their involvement. Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion strikes me a bit pointless. From my outside perspective I have to say that the term to be used is what can be attributed to reliable sources. Despite assertions that it is incorrect, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia appears to be verifiability not truth. If, as Fireplace says, the common term in scholarly literature is LGBT, then that is the term to be used unless reliable sources can be produced that state otherwise, likewise if a footnote disclaimer is to be included about use of the term in the 1980s, it too must be reliably sourced, otherwise it's a no-go. Since Skoojal has not produced a single source to back up his/her assertions, I'd say it's a moot point. Just my input based on what I have read of policy.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that terms used commonly in scholarly literary must be correct is odd. Scholarly literature can be as tendentious as any other kind of literature. I'm not rushing to change the use of 'LGBT' in this article, but will probably be doing so in future, as the term is an anachronism as applied to the 1980s. Skoojal (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source to cite that agrees with you that it's an anachronism, that may well be worth mentioning in the article. But I don't think you've quite made the case that the usage is inappropriate here. I concur with Aujourd'hui re verifiability. Rivertorch (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Africa and Azande society

I'm reverting the good-faith edit [5] by Haiduc for two reasons. First, the paragraph was already sourced and mentioned husbands, not wives. If someone (Haiduc?) has the work in question or can access it, perhaps we can know for sure which term, if either, Evans-Pritchard used. (If not, how about "spouses"?) Second, the precise nature of the sexual acts and Azande attitudes toward other acts seem excessively detailed for this article; nowhere else in the History section is there anywhere near that level of detail, so it's inconsistent and breaks the flow. IMHO. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text of Evans-Pritchard's report is online here. Since the source mentions how they related I would accept that formulation (i.e. "intercrural"), and leave the further details for the Azande article. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with the text

Currently there is a sentence in the part about American Indian practices that must be a mistake:

Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the opposite sex. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work.

This says that individuals with male primary sexual characteristics had their "sexual live" with ordinary tribe members having female primary sexual characteristics, and that these same individuals with male primary sexual characteristics were prizes as wives -- by whom? Surely not by individuals with female primary sexual characteristics. So "opposite" above ought to be "same," no?

Someone with the ability to temporarily unlock this page, please fix this part. P0M (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. I saw that sentence and wondered about it, too. Textorus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article's only semi-protected so any auto-confirmed user can edit it. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment

This article is currently listed as a GA, but there are several problems with it. Here are some things to fix:

• There are entire sections and paragraphs with few to no citations.
• The lead defines homosexuality more than it summarizes the main points of the article, which is the purpose of the lead. See WP:LEAD.
• Some of the citations are misplaced. They need to be after punctuation with no space between the punctuation and the number.
• The issues brought up in the cleanup tags (worldview or citations needed) need to be addressed.
• Some of the websites used as references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
• The book sources used in the references need page numbers.

I'll give the editors of this article a week to address these issues, at which time I may refer the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Good luck, and happy editing! Nikki311 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the misplaced citations. (I think I caught them all. Context demands that citation 114 appear before the ellipsis.) A thorough copyedit—or two or three—is also indicated; I saw some other issues. Can we really rewrite the lead in one week(!)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that the easiest way to rewrite the lead is to include one sentence from every first level header. I don't mind helping, if need be. Nikki311 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I would like to bring up for GA reassessment is the lack of information on HIV and other STDs. Only a brief mention is given in the political section, while this seems to have played a major contribution to bringing homosexuality to the mainstream and other changes in the gay culture. There is a large number of homosexuals who are struggle from this dreaded disease, and ignoring it doesn't help their cause. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage and civil unions

Same sex marriage is now be legal in California as of June 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.105.213 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Health

"Negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality contribute to stress and related mental disorders, and even suicide, in the LGBT community. However, there is evidence that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades has resulted in a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people" This statement shows clear bias towards the LGBT community and encourages people not to discriminate. That is not the job of wikipedia. Mattjones17 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not "bias" to say that certain actions have certain consequences. If you want to perform those actions, and to live with the consequences, then who's stopping you? No one's telling anyone what to do. The section doesn't say, "Don't do X because Y will happen." It's saying, "If X happens, then Y will happen." It's stating facts, not values. Are you aware of information that conflicts with what the section already says? If so, then feel free to add it. If not, then I'm not quite sure what you're expecting to accomplish. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the first sentence Mattjones refers to is not cited. (The source at the end of that paragraph only supports the second sentence) It would be good if someone interested in the subject would get a source for this. Although, I have to say, I wonder if we should do a reality check here, since we are asking for a source to support the assertion that "negative societal attitudes" against a person are likely to make them feel bad. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig's change of wording to denote correlation rather than causation seems reasonable. I did change "some evidence" to "evidence", since the former is essentially meaningless in literal terms but possibly implies less than ample evidence. What's really weaselly is the "are said to" phrase. Either we find something worthwhile to cite and return to the former wording or the whole sentence should go. Rivertorch (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)