Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:LGBT Navigation

I've copied this from my talk page. Does anyone here have an interest in either Psychotherapy and/or German?

Hy SatyrTN, i saw that in the english wikipeda is missing a very important article over Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy. On german wikipedia we have a good article and here is the literature. So i can try to translate that article, but you have to look for that article because my english translation isn' t so perfect for correct psycholocial specific terms. In only found in english wikipedia an article over the wrong and old Reparative therapy, where the Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy is only a part of the article. GLGermann (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

• Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, Schwerpunkt: Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis revisited, 2002, 6. Jhrg., Nummer 1
• Isay, Richard A. (1993). Schwul sein. Die psychologische Entwicklung des Homosexuellen. München: Piper. ISBN 3492116833 (Original 1989: Being homosexual. Gay men and their development. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.)
• Rauchfleisch, Udo u.a. (2002). Gleich und doch anders: Psychotherapie und Beratung von Lesben, Schwulen, Bisexuellen und ihren Angehörigen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. ISBN 360894236X
• Ritter, Kathleen Y. & Terndrup, Anthony I. (2002). Handbook of Affirmative Psychotherapy with Lesbians and Gay Men. New York: Guilford. ISBN 1572307145

I'll be glad to keep an eye on it and make corrections, once it is translated. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying these comments from Talk:Gay. Aleta (Sing) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The entire idea that people, especially men, can be divided on the basis of their 'proclaimed' sexuality is a concept peculiar to the modern west, and to discuss the concept as a universal phenomena, and to judge or study other sexuality, men and masculinities in other cultures and in other times on the basis of these concepts not only distorts and misrepresents their reality, but also is seen as oppressive by people on whom the west enforces these identities, often through the one-sided process of globalisation.

Wikipedia, should take into account this fact when discussing modern western concepts such as 'sexual orienatation', 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'gay' and 'straight', etc., and it should clearly mention this fact, because, although it is an English site, it is meant for the entire world, and not only for the western world. Only that will make it a truly relevant and global site. (Masculinity (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know how true or false this statement is, but I have read similar things before. We should make an effort not to be ethnocentric in our articles. In anthropological terms, there are the emic (insider) and etic (outsider) cultural points-of-view. We should strive to include the emic where possible. Aleta (Sing) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of sexual orientation may not only be western, but modern. Anything that's included in the article, though, needs a citation. Can he provide a source that says sexual orientation is only a western concept? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the same old essentialism v. social constructionism issue, with regards to postcolonial queer. *yawn* Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masculinity, Aleta, and Moni3. I don't feel that it has anything to do with essentialism versus social construction. One is not arguing the fact that people throughout history have been attracted to their own sex or the fact that this is not a conscious choice for them, but at least feels inborn. Instead it has to to with the linguistic and cultural concepts that different cultures offer, the patterns of behavior that can be referred to simply in a word or two, without complicated esoteric explanations. the Greeks and the Romans had different concepts for it than we do, and anyone "homosexual" in the modern sense must have had a difficult time explaining themselves -- even to themselves. Even in the 1950's, when I grew up, the terms "homosexual" and "queer" had very different meanings than the roughly corresponding terms "gay" and "faggot" do today -- and a main struggle in my life has been just figuring myself out. From what I read, young LGBT people today have related but different problems trying to fit themselves into the terminology. It's important for us at WP to be non-ethnocentric about other historical periods and other cultures -- not just because we ought to be historically accurate, but because our culture too is inevitably limited in the menu of conceptual choices it offers, and there must be people (including perhaps we ourselves) who are not well-served by it. The only possible remedies are objectivity and clarity of thought. William P. Coleman (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should accommodate this perspective by moving the article to Homosexualities. I don't think it will happen, but I am only half joking. Another thing we can do is to avoid the use of the term "homosexuality" whenever not essential (sic), using "same-sex relations" or "same-sex attraction"as much as possible. Haiduc (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More wikiangst over hair-splitting definitions and connotative nuances by folks who, in all likelihood, have no credentials in lexicography or sociology. We would be much more convincing and helpful to our readers if we provided clear, solid, reliable sources to back up all our wishful ideas about what words mean, or ought to mean in an ideal wikiworld. Anybody who's followed the Marriage article word wars will understand what I'm getting at. There's my humble 2 cents' worth . . . skulking back into homolurk mode now.Textorus (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't another side of the coin recognizing that we currently live (mostly) and read WP in the modern western world? I'm not making any excuses about foisting modern western values on anyone else, I'm just saying we don't live in ancient Greece, so we don't understand (at least not intrinsically) their concept of sexuality/homosexuality. We understand our own, and we're writing for people who understand our own. To try and do anything different is impossible - we can only be aware that that's a built in bias/POV/whatever you want to call it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the op is right in stating that sexual orientation began as a western concept, and there are still a few places where sexuality is conceived in terms of behaviours rather than identities, however for better or for worse the idea that some people have a primary attraction to people of particular genders is pretty well accepted across large swathes of the world.

If we're talking about people in Edo-period Japan or Classical Greece, for example, "gay" would be an anachronistic and misapplied term. But among modern Japanese and Greek people, even if they don't identify as "gay" per se, probably most same-sex-loving people would agree that they have a particular orientation. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can reference the point I made from the first chapters of David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. An essentialist view of homosexuality is when we use the term 'homosexuality' or the mere distinction of same-sex love/desire/attraction for hermeneutics of times before the term was coined, or of settings when the term has no resonance (e.g. Lesotho women). However, this is an LGBT project; 'LGBT' is essentialist, 'queer' wouldn't be but then it would eschew encyclopedic classification... I henceforth suggest, as per Halperin p. 60, that LGBT history is the way 'we' look at it now. (So-called objective history would be humanist and thereby male, white, and so forth). This is a pretty boring argument, hence the foregoing yawn.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzag ... the debate of essentialism vs social constructionism is again a very western one, essentially of a highly heterosexualised society with a Christian past. The man in the orient not does not see things in this manner. Male eroticism is known as a universal male behaviour not limited to a certain section of men. There is no question of it being seen as a different behaviour, not at least in the peer male group. In formal spaces, yes, no one talks about it and it is seen as non-existent, but as soon as one is in the peer male group it is the most natural thing for a man to be doing. Of course, things change with the level of westernisation that society has achieved, because westernisation is essentially heterosexualising the society. And here, same-sex relations are shown as 'queer', 'uncommon' and occurring in men who are 'different'. (Masculinity (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would also like to post here excerpts from another text I posted ... perhaps this would help in seeing the non-western world's viewpoint somewhat. Although, I am glad that many people from the west already know what I'm talking about -- at least, they have an inkling, even if they can't put their finger at it.

"It describes the social construction of human, especially male sexuality, as it is formally and popularly seen in the west ... assuming it to be universally applicable. As far as the article is concerned, the only difference is between people who are open about their 'gay' identities and those men who relate with sexually wtih other men but do not call themselves gay, who are described as 'closeted' (or bicurious or so). A person from the orient finds the entire notion of isolation on the basis of so-called 'sexual orientation' problematic. When almost everyman is involved in some sexual way with another man, you don't really feel different for liking men.

How do you explain this dichotomy in the article? The term 'Gay' carries with it all the negative baggages of the 'heterosexualised' society, where the pressures on men to disown their same-sex needs is so extreme, that only very few men think of indulging in male-to-male sexuality by acknowledging it. The rest either keep away totally and deny their feelings, or indulge in male-eroticism without acknowledging their own interest. The term 'gay' is based on the lots of assumptions which are invalid in a non-western, non-heterosexualised world. E.g., the very concept of their being 'gay' assumes that most men do not feel sexuality towards other men. Then, who is defined as the 'same-sex'. The western culture only considers the outer sex of an individual when deciding their sex-identity, but in most non-western cultures, the sex-identity also involves, compulsorily the Gender or the inner sex of an individual. Thus a Hijra may have a penis, but he will be a different 'sex' or rather 'gender' than 'Men', because s(he) is a woman inside a man. A man and Hijra having sex is not seen as 'same-sex' in non-western countries. Of course, the west doesn't recognise 'Gender' as a valid human phenomena, and ascribes it to a mental aberration. Then of course, there is a whole lot of conspiracies behind the very concept of 'gay' or 'sexual orientation' -- revolving around men and manhood, which is relevant both in the west and the east, but men in western countries do not have a space to address these issues, and also that their cultural mindset makes them incapable to comprehend the exact parameters of these issues." (Masculinity (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

SatyrTN: <<<Isn't another side of the coin recognizing that we currently live (mostly) and read WP in the modern western world?>>>

(a) If I'm not mistaken, today, we live in a globalised world. Especially in the cyberworld. There are simply too many readers/ participants on such sites from the non-western world.

(b) Even, if it were only for the western world, even then, do you think it would be a good idea to misrepresent the rest of the world. It is not fair to them.

SatyrTN: <<<We understand our own, and we're writing for people who understand our own. To try and do anything different is impossible - we can only be aware that that's a built in bias/POV/whatever you want to call it.>>>

If this is the case, then we should not define or explain the terms 'sexual orienation' 'gay', 'straight' etc. as if they were universally true concepts. We should clarify that we are talking only about certain societies or people -- in particular, western societies, actually modern western societies, and westernised/ heterosexualised societies in the other parts of the world.

In this case the proper definition of homosexual will be: "A man who is attracted to another man in modern western societies." And, homosexuality as, "sexual attraction between men in the modern west." (Masculinity (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Exploding Boy: <<<however for better or for worse the idea that some people have a primary attraction to people of particular genders is pretty well accepted across large swathes of the world.>>>

(a) Before the western media bombarded our society with their misinformation and destroyed our male spaces, it was common knowledge here in India, at least amongst men, that all men have a sexual desire for other men, and men had no qualms about accepting it.

(b) Gay is not defined as 'primary' sexual attraction towards men. the entire male society is divided into 'heterosexual' majority and 'homosexual' minority. the straight men are not supposed to be into men at all -- as per western standards/ propaganda.

Exploding Boy: <<<But among modern Japanese and Greek people, even if they don't identify as "gay" per se, probably most same-sex-loving people would agree that they have a particular orientation.>>>

I can tell you about India, and it is pretty much the same in all non-western and even western societies. Before the heterosexualisation/ westernisation of the society there are extremely high levels of male-eroticism and it is in fact given preference over male-female eroticism, for all practical purposes and marriage is seen mainly as a social duty. As the society is heterosexualised/ westernised and male-male relations propagated/ isolated as 'gay' or 'homosexual', the formal/ acknowledged space for male-male sexuality is then reserved for the queer/ feminine male, while 'straight' men start disowning their same-sex desires. This is how you get the western kind of scenario. It is not that the straight men, even in the west, do not feel male sexual desire, but they have no social space to acknoweldge it. They do sometimes engage in male eroticism, but without recognising it as such, and for most of the time they fight and suppress their same-sex tendenices, so that 'gay' people can then claim it to be their 'exclusive' trait. (Masculinity (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have issues with generalizing any person's or group's thought to the extent that you wrote "The man in the orient doesn't see things in this manner..." Regardless, I'm sure your points are valid, but so are mine that Fred Phelps is a dickhead and is probably gayer than me and Liberace put together, which is extraordinarily gay. I can't post that on Wikipedia though, without a source. If you have a source that describes western concepts of sexual orientation vs eastern concepts, you're free to include that information in whatever articles it applies to. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And personally, I stopped reading at "the man in the orient." Odd that you're trying to avoid essentialism by being essentialist. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding boy:: I have issues with generalizing any person's or group's thought to the extent that you wrote "The man in the orient doesn't see things in this manner..."

I'm glad that you're against generalising. If I get enough time to explain myself, I can prove that I am not generalising at all. Rather it is the western notions of 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexuality'/ 'heterosexuality' that do the generalisation. But right now, I will concentrate on giving the published sources for my contention (Non-published sources are aplenty).

Quote from the book "Masculinity for boys", published by UNESCO in 2006:

Page 98:

In Indian society, men have traditionally enjoyed close bonds with each other. These bonds can easily become secretly erotic. Relationships between men have prospered within this male solidarity, albeit secretly. .....

..... We have seen how the heterosexualisation of the Indian society is changing this traditional masculinity pattern. Heterosexualisation also includes the homosexualisation of male-male love. It is one of the most basic forms of male oppression.

Page: 102:

"Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

When these heterosexual terms are imposed upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., a sexual identity 'homosexual' becomes a gender identity.

The book has been compiled, documenting discussions and workshops held with Indian Youth (in North India for the past ten years). • (Masculinity (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Finally, a source. Great, why don't you create a section in the Homosexuality article, say, "Non-western concepts of sexuality" or something like that, and include these quotes over there where readers can see them? A single sentence at the beginning of the article would suffice to indicate that most of it is discussing the Western viewpoint, however. And that viewpoint doesn't need to be deconstructed to the point of invisibility: I don't know what's "true" for boys and men in India, but "sexual orientation" is most certainly true and applicable in my life and millions of others in the Western world of today. But I would be interested in learning in more detail how non-Westerners view these things, so why don't you get going on the alternate viewpoints you've raised, and get them into the article? :o) Textorus (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that material, perhaps sexual orientation isn't quite as invalid as you're making it out to be. All this secrecy between men and boys creates identities behind closed doors. I'm attracted to you, but not where everyone can see. For men and women who feel this all the time and reject what's expected of them in this society, traditional marriage, reproduction, etc., and rather prefer to live with the people they love and are attracted to, they are a minority. For wanting to do what they want, that goes against what society tells them to, they share an identity. The next step is creating a label for themselves, identifying others who are like them, seeking them out, and creating a community, even in secret. Sexual orientation exists because gay people are declared to exist outside the norm. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni3: <<<perhaps sexual orientation isn't quite as invalid as you're making it out to be.>>>

Moni3, what needs to be understood here is that sexual eroticism between males is considered an essential and integral part of manhood not only in traditional Indian male-space but in fact in all male spaces all over the world. The thing is that in heterosexualised societies like the modern west, there are hardly any male spaces left. They've been destroyed by the Forces of Heterosexualisation, by heterosexualising these spaces and making them mixed gender. Put alongwith the traditional pressures on men in the formal space to have sex with women and the modern western pressures of extreme hostility towards male-male sexuality -- it kills most of the male eroticism amongst men.

But, in a men's space, like in traditional India, where male eroticism is considered a normal and integral part of manhood, in the men's spaces, and they even talk about it fairly openly ... it would be foolish to think of this as an identity. Identity are made up of things that are different. You can't have an identity of a human being with two eyes, because, well, everyone has two eyes.

In fact, it was the same in the west, before it was heterosexualised, I think we're talking about before the 60s. There is documentary and published evidence of it.

The concept of sexual orientation, and of 'gay' has relvance only when the men's spaces are destroyed and changed with anti-man, heterosexual spaces. But this in itself is an oppressive process, that needs to be challenged. Adherence to the concept of sexual orientation validates the anti-man oppressive forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni3 <<<For men and women who feel this all the time and reject what's expected of them in this society, traditional marriage, reproduction, etc., and rather prefer to live with the people they love and are attracted to, they are a minority>>>

Certainly, you're right. But then, the definition of 'gay' should not be: "a man who is attracted to men", but a man who is open about his sexual attraction for men.

However, things are not as simple as that. The term 'gay' has several other drawbacks. I have evidence to show that the term gay is actually part of the an age old social conspiracy against men, which has only succeeded once the men's spaces have been totally destroyed in the west. It serves to isolate men from the rest, who rebel against men's heterosexualisation, and own up their sexual need for men. It is like a punishment.

Also, again, 'gay' is historically and biologically, a third-sex space. Now, the western society doesn't recognise a third-sex as such, but, nevertheless, the entire non-western world, and pre-Christianity west recognised and understood this concept. Men do not belong in this third-sex/ queer space.

Again, should we strengthen the forces which have forced men who like men to be a minority, when they are not in reality --- by playing into their plan of isolating into a mismatched and highly discredited and marginalised third sex space --- in order to buy short term peace for ourselves; or should we fight these oppressive forces by rejecting their identities and assumptions and exposing their mispropaganda.

The westerners have all the money brought by industrialisation. When you're that rich, you are not dependant upon a community, like humans in nature are dependant on. You become individualistic. That is probably why western men don't see the dichotomies of adopting a 'gay' identity.

However, people in non-industrialised world, and in fact in working-class groups even in the west, live in communities where these things do matter a lot. And men immediately understand if there are things that are meant to harm their interests, and are oppressive for men as a group. (Masculinity (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• My essential problem with this topic is that it is really one of semantics, not of substance. "A person from the orient finds the entire notion of isolation on the basis of so-called 'sexual orientation' problematic." I've known many people from Asia who more than readily identify as gay. Regardless, we can't take every nuanced view a person has about themselves and try to accomodate it within article if there is no sourcing or citation to the phenomenon. We have articles on Pansexual, Transexual, Transvestite, Bisexual, Omnisexual, Asexual, Gay, Lesbian, and the list goes on...Homosexuality describes a documented phenomenon, and if the term is applied to some people where it doesn't fit, it still has a set of criteria. IN some Latin countries men aren't considered gay if they aren't on the bottom, and I believe the same is true in some Arabic cultures. Perhaps the best place to go is just Sexuality. Instead of trying to round out the square peg of the Homosexuality article go to a more general article like Sexuality to flesh out what you see as important differences. David Shankbone 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, your contention sounds like cultural hegemony to me. What you're saying in effect is, since the definition suits you, you do not want to accomodate other notions and cultures. And as far as the citations are concerned I have already provided one. That is what is needed as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Through the discussion I'm just trying to make people here understand what the issue is really all about.

David Shankbone <<<My essential problem with this topic is that it is really one of semantics, not of substance.>>>

One problem with people who fit into the 'established' norms/ concepts/ identities is that sometimes they refuse to see that other people may have a genuine problem with the same established norms, and that these norms may not be all that perfect.

It is with these concepts and identities that male sexuality is so grossly misrepresented by the western societies. Otherwise, it is never witnessed in any culture or society, that men find male eroticism digusting -- the way they do in the west. That it is believed (and actually practised) that the majority of men have no sexual interest in men whatsoever, when it is not natural. And you say, it is just a matter of semantic not substance ... ?

David Shankbone <<<Ive known many people from Asia who more than readily identify as gay.>>>

But, what you don't know is that right in your country, straight men are forced, trained and conditioned to disown their own sexual need for men, thanks to the misconstrued notions of 'sexual orientation'. I have been in touch with several such men, and have been studying the phenomena at the macro level.

Of course, there would be people all over the world who would perfectly fit into the 'gay' identity. But, if you notice carefully, you'd know that like in the west, most of them are feminine gendered males ---, also known as the 'third sex', which is the real meaning of the term 'queer'.

Of course, there are always a few non-queer westernised guys in countries like India, who adopt the term, misguided by the English definitions. But the majority of men do not relate with it as an identity, even if they loosely use it to describe their sexual choices.

If you look carefully, in the west too, most non-fem guys prefer to remain in the closet. And most people who adopt the 'gay' identity are feminine gendered males.

It is not without reason that this is happening. The Conspiracy against men has fixed it this way. The forces of heterosexualisation banish men who own up their sexuality for men into the third sex group (gay), so they can say that men who like men are not really men ... they are queers, third sex, gay, homosexual. This acts as immense pressure on the masculine gendered males, for whom the third-sex, gay space is not a valid space. Since they cannot comprehend the conspiracy which is made invisible, they end up hating their own same-sex feelings.

Actually, in the end, it is the same in the east as well as the west. The concept of 'sexual orientation' is equally invalid in both the places. But, since it is so entrenched in the west, and queer people have lots of (unreasonable) power -- given to them by the forces of heterosexualisation (IN FACT Gay men are part of the forces of heterosexualisation) ... so non-westerners cannot ask you to change things at your end. But, we can ask you to stop imposing your definitions on us, and pretending as if they are the natural way to be. Thankfully, I have a few references to support my contention, which is an issue, which is otherwise totally invisible, since it does not have a voice. (Masculinity (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An explanation to my earlier contention: <<<If you look carefully, in the west too, most non-fem guys prefer to remain in the closet. And most people who adopt the 'gay' identity are feminine gendered males.>>>

Of course, in the west however, there are also many masculine gendered males (men) who like men, who are isolated because, men's spaces have been destroyed, and they have been isolated by a heterosexualised society which is extremely hostile to male-male sexuality. But, these men are never really comfortable in the 'gay' space or identity. They know something is amiss, however, becasue of the invisible nature of the oppresion of men, they can't pinpoint what is wrong, and so are doomed to bear their cross. (Masculinity (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, I simply can't read these long-winded explanations. On Wikipedia, the art of being succinct and efficient in your wording will wield you far more influence. With all due respect, Masculinity, when you write these long posts few people read them in my experience. I did not. The second problem is you can espouse theory and purport cultural norms and mores for pages and pages. But if you don't have W:V-worthy sources from notable researchers or publications, we can't use anything you write. Your keystrokes are wasted without being able to say "And this [university professor] [sociologist] [gender issues expert] [magazine] [newspaper] said [X]." --David Shankbone 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed David, I have already provided the sources, and they have been accepted by the members -- they are from a book published by UNESCO, documenting 10 years of work with youth in India. The book is called "Masculinity for Boys", and I have also included excerpts that clearly point out the essence of my point here, namely, that the concept of 'sexual orientation' is invalid. If at all it is valid, it is only in westernised, heterosexualised societies. (Masculinity (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

By all means, include the source, but it is going to take more than one book to counteract western thought on the articles. You can't craft an entire response section based on one source, especially when challenging what is the dominant view (worldwide, mind you; I've traveled a great deal and I have interviewed a good deal of notable people).--David Shankbone 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the cross-cultural differences Masculinity refers to, but I know something about one version of them, among males. You might look at:

• Homosexuality in ancient Greece
• Greek Homosexuality

An hour of research with with their reading list, Amazon Reader, and Google Books would produce enough scholarship to write a WP:FA on m2m sexuality in Ancient Greese -- and another hour would give material for a similar article on Ancient Rome. These articles would say:

• A Brokeback Mountain, romantic relationship between two equal, adult males was generally impossible in Ancient Greece (as much as it was 50 years ago in, say, the US).
• The reason was that, for 2 males to have sex, at least one is probably going to get penetrated -- too effeminate, totally culturally taboo, something no one would admit to. (It was OK for a boy but not for a man.)

The problem is that people made too simple an equation between the gender a person identifies with and the gender s/he is attracted to.

Imagine a questionnaire like:

1. Which gender were you born?
2. Which gender would you prefer to be?
3. Which gender(s) attract you?
4. Do you feel most comfortable acting publicly with mannerisms of your own gender or the opposite?
5. Do you feel most comfortable in sexual/romantic relationships acting your own gender or the opposite?
6. . . . and so on . . .

What seems to be obvious now is that your answer to any of these questions does not predict your answer to any other. The variety of legitimate behavior and emotion is totally diverse.

There do, admittedly seem to be problems with Masculinity's posts: (1) He doesn't understand references; (2) He may not be accurate in distinctions about "Western," "Modern," and so on; (3) He's even more verbose than I am, and I'm intolerable.

However, I feel he's right to point out that the variety of gender roles and preferences is important -- and universal. We all need to figure ourselves out and to be able to claim respect from others for what we are. And he's right that this is something the LGBT Project should address. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<A Brokeback Mountain, romantic relationship between two equal, adult males was generally impossible in Ancient Greece (as much as it was 50 years ago in, say, the US).>>>

It is difficult for us to fully comprehend the construction of male sexuality in such an ancient past ... but surely there are innumerable examples of sexual love between equals (Alexander and Hephaistion). Definitely, it would be wrong to say that the ancient greek society in any way discouraged or frowned upon sex between equals. They might have structured it in a manner that there usually was a gap of a few years between two lovers. That had more to do with organisation of the society than regulating male sexuality.

There usually was not a hell of a difference between two male lovers ... it was usually between a younger youth and an older youth. Male-female marriage on the other hand used to have a huge age gap -- of more than 15 years. And, it was so even in India till about 100 years ago. If you look at nature, things are probably this way only. Amongst wild mammals, eg. adolescent males often have sexual relations with adults. So, the value of sex between equals (meaning equal age) is not necessarily an ideal situation.

In any case, how many partners even in the modern west are of exactly the equal age. (Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

<<<::The reason was that, for 2 males to have sex, at least one is probably going to get penetrated -- too effeminate, totally culturally taboo, something no one would admit to. (It was OK for a boy but not for a man.)>>>

(i) It is true that receptive anal sex has been unfairly adjudged 'feminine' from a time even before the ancient Greeks. But the idea had been to discourage men from indulging in it. Anything that you designate as 'feminine' becomes out of bound for masculine gendered men (straight men as they're called in the west). (And that is one of the problems with 'gay').

This adjudication of receptive sex as feminine prompted the queer/ feminine (called catamite in ancient greek, Hijra in medieval India) male to adopt it as its trademark, making it even more stigmatised for men.

But this would not have prevented Greek men from indulging in sex with equals, because in any case, at least outwardly, they were supposed not to have anal sex at all, but have intercourse through the thighs.

(ii) I have reason to believe (I'm a sexual health counsellor) that two equal men, if they come down to having sex will have anal sex as equals, but they will just not talk about it. This is there way to deal with the dichotomies of social masculinity and personal preferences.

(iii) It is a myth that men can't (or don't want to) have sex with each other without indulging in anal sex. In fact, I remember a survey somewhere, which said that even amongst gay men (I think in America) only about 30% men indulged in anal sex, while the other 70% did not.

Anal sex seems to be more prominent amongst gay identified men. My experience of working with straight men in India shows that eventhough they are interested sexually in other men, often they are not into anal sex. In fact, you can be exclusively into other men but not be into anal or even oral sex.(Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Haiduc: <<<Another thing we can do is to avoid the use of the term "homosexuality" whenever not essential (sic), using "same-sex relations" or "same-sex attraction" as much as possible. >>>

THAT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA. REALLY. (Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

William (and anyone for that matter), can you help me put the references in the article on 'homosexuality'. I don't seem to have the permission to do that. (Masculinity (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have been working on a few articles "Love Won Out", "Exodus International", "Focus on the Family", and then sub pages such as "Joe Dallas", "John Paulk", Dr. "Joseph Nicolosi", and still need to do "Mike Haley." These articles are concerning the Religiouse Right movement to stop homosexuality and cure them of their disease restoreing a more godly and normal lifestyle. It is my goal to provide factual truth as to what these organizations represent, who their founders are and the contriversy surrounding them. I would greatly appreciate any help being offered. Also, editing and rating such articles relating to this movement.

"Love Won Out" has already been awarded a class "B" rating, some improvements have been made but I would enjoy seeing a "GA" rating in the future. The content is well cited but I am sure there are plenty of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article.

"Focus on the Family" is the original point where I started and eventually broke "Love Won Out" into its own article, I still want some facts to be a parallel bridge but I am sure someone can improve on the links. This should have a LGBT Start rating because a lot of work should be done.

The various people listed are all involved in the ex gay movement and should have brief autobiographies posted or improved on.

• • Remember these organizations are not friends of the LGBT community but deserve fair representation of their ideology's and beliefs. Of course that means iterating the controversy behind them as well.

Nycutiepi (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ~Nycutiepi~[reply]

Hi there, it seems this article is up for deletion. This seems a bit strange to me as it is a really big deal in Sweden (amongst gays anyway). I know sod all about writing articles but I do speak Swedish. If anyone wants to save this from deletion then let me know and I'll translate whatever you need.

Intesvensk (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brought on by some controversy at Calpernia Addams, as she requested her article be deleted, the result of which was to keep it (as she is notable, & a public person). Part of her stated reasons was that "birth name" for transpeople is a trickier subject than for people like Bill Clinton (Blythe) & Marilyn "Norma Jean" Monroe. Which is a fair point. Is there a forum to discuss the subject of "born as" & such ilk, & if not, should we create one? --mordicai. (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to follow WP:BLP closely. If multiple reliable sources can be found linking the current name of the person with the person's birth name, then we can state. If not, then we absolutely should not. Ideally, we would have something where the person stated, "X was my birth name". We are not, however, in the business of outing people. Aleta (Sing) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend we go with MOS:IDENTITY on this rather than WP:BLP. There are always birth-records, which are WP:V, but if a transgender person wishes to go by the name "Tomb Thumb", we should respect that more than the government's pieces of paper. You're right, Aleta, that if someone says "Sam was my name, but now I'm Tomb Thumb", that's about the only time we should be bringing in birth names. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd forgotten about that. It even specifically addresses how to write about transgendered people. It doesn't, however, comment on whether or not even to mention other names, and so I'd say we need to use it and BLP, neither one being sufficient alone. I agree with you, Satyr, that we ought not to be using birth records. I was trying to emphasize the use of multiple sources, and should have specified published (not just governmental). Whatever policies we reference, I think we basically agree on the practice. :) Aleta (Sing) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly glad to become aware of MOS:IDENTITY; good. Still, the question does remain whether such information is notable & worthy of inclusion. I am sort of inclined to think that it might be, under biographical information, especially given the aegis of MOS:IDENTITY to keep the article from becoming becoming "I gotcha!" or anything gross. --mordicai. (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using a "heightened" WP:BLP standard would seem to apply: 1. Is the information widely known and 2. We have multiple WP:RS's reporting that info. Until both of those have been met I'm reluctant to add that information especially if the subject has shown a desire for privacy in that area. People are routinely targeted, threatened, attacked and killed for such accusations, suspicions and revealations and we should take great care not to add to someone's victimization. Benjiboi 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported User talk:97.88.222.103 for vandalism in regards to constantly vandalizing the Talk:Ted Haggard page, and for the personal attacks seen here: [1] & [2]. The admin seems to think nothing is wrong and has not blocked the user. The same user was blocked 2 days ago for vandalizing and leaving me this message on my talk page: [3]. If an admin reads this, could you please help me out and either block this person or tell someone who will do it since the admin who is monitoring Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right now doesn't seem to care. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to block them, but someone's beaten me to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the block template that is usually on talk pages? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the admin didn't put a notice on the talk page, but the block log shows the following:

16:19, 2008 February 17 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) blocked "97.88.222.103 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruption)

-Aleta (Sing) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet the same dude sits in church and shakes his head, wondering why more people don't come to church. Wtf? Actually, he sits in church and shakes his head at all the faggots in the world, especially that one kid - his best friend back in high school (weren't those days fun?), who introduced him to the wonderful world of oral sex a couple dozen times before he finally beat the crap out of him just to prove he wasn't gay. The human mind is fascinating. Hang in there, APK. --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod from this article, because I found a review of her work in Canadian Literature. I added a reference to that, and will be trying to find some more RS to add. It definitely needs more refs, or is likely to go up on AfD. Aleta (Sing) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I put the prod up. A review of her work isn't quite the same as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". Go for it - my research on Google was less-than-convincing, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's just one thing, but I thought it was enough of a start to pull off the prod. I hope (but am not certain) that I can find more. If not, AfD away! :D Aleta (Sing) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... she seems to be published all over the place, and lots of blogs talk about her, but I'm not finding much more that would constitute an independent RS for WP. Aleta (Sing) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message in regards to this on my talk page, but I'll re-post it here so all of my queer brothers/sisters can see. I'm currently trying to clean up the articles listed under this category by removing porn/marketing links and reducing the number of movies mentioned per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. I know some of the guys on here feel very protective of these articles for some reason. (My guess is they're incredibly horny and want porn on wikipedia in addition to the countless porn websites already on the Internet) I've already had to revert some of the edits guys have made to these articles...edits that are re-adding the links and movie titles. I'm the first one to admit I admire the male anatomy and enjoy the guys in these articles, but come on, this is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Articles dealing with the porn stars is totally fine, but adding links to their studios and to pictures of their dicks hard is not. A few users, User talk:Ciompi.sellone, seem to think constantly adding copyrighted/pornographic images on WP is fine...it's not. I'm not a prude, but WP is supposed to be educational and adding images of guys giving blowjobs is inappropriate for a website that is used by minors. If someone really wants to see naked images and view a full list of the movies a porn star has been in, then a simple google search will satisfy his cravings. Besides, most of the articles contain a link showing the full list of movie titles. I hope the guys that are adding these links and images reads this and realize this isn't some kind of "attack" on porn actors, but an attempt to make WP encyclopedic and relevant. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume since you placed a notice of this discussion on my talk page that I'm one of the people you so charmingly consider too horny to make good decisions about articles (very civil of you, by the way). The notion that Wikipedia must be cleansed of links at which some minor might see a penis is completely contrary to our cornerstone policy Wikipedia is not censored. I have little interest in using Wikipedia as a repository for blow job pics either but if the blow job pic is otherwise allowable under our extensive image use policy then you have no business removing it under the rubric of "inappropriate for minors." As for the notion that a complete videography is improper for a porn star's article, that's nonsense. Most articles on actors contain lists of their works and we have several categorization structures for capturing articles that are solely devoted to listing actors' films, authors' books, asrtists' paintings and sculptures and so on. Unless you're suggesting that the entire contents of for instance Category:Filmographies should be deleted (and if you are then going about it by complaining about porn stars' videographies is to say the least an odd way to approach it) then you may want to examine your own bias that those articles are worthwhile and encyclopedic but lists of porn films are not. I would also point out that the desires of any particualr Wikiproject regarding content should be given consideration but that the desires of that Wikiproject do not automatically outweigh the opinions of other editors who work on the articles without being part of the project structure. The notion that a link could be added to another site that has a listing of films strikes me as self-contradictory, as there is a decent likelihood that the site housing that list will have pictures of naked men on them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of no more than six videos being listed on each porn actor's page comes from WP:WPPORN. Since you disagree with the standard, I suggest discussing it there. APK is just trying to bring the articles in line with the established standard. Aleta (Sing) 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, again, the wishes of the individual project are certainly important but they are not the end-all and be-all in deciding on content. Consider for example Ryan Idol. He appeared in eight adult films. It makes little sense to me to delete two of those films off the list just because the Wikiproject says so. As far as I know having a complete filmography in an article is not discouraged or forbidden by any policy or guideline above the project level, whether for porn stars or "legitimate" actors. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are the end-all and be-all in deciding content? Tell me if this [4] & [5] (the images have now been deleted from that link but contained oral and anal sex) belongs in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. WP is viewed by minors and I'm having a hard time thinking parents would agree that having pornogaphic pictures and links in an encyclopedia is a good idea. This has nothing to do with the articles themselves...having an article about a porn star is fine, but the marketing and porn links is NOT educational. I'm not here to argue and I wasn't uncivil in my first paragraph...I merely stated what was going on and if you took it as being rude then that wasn't my intention, but when you throw a brick into a pin of dogs...the one that yelps is the one that got hit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or maybe the one that yelps is the one who happened to be near his computer when you threw your little "brick." And sweetie, please, I am the master of the snide comment and if you really think that you had no intention of being rude above then you're simply not being honest with yourself or us.
• I never said that I was the end-all or be-all in deciding content. I said that the Wikiproject isn't. And you certainly aren't. And as I also said, it is irrelevant that Wikipedia is viewed by minors because Wikipedia is not censored. It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide what is or isn't safe for little Jonny or Sue to look at. That's up to little Jonny and Sue's parents. Wikipedia editors have no role in loco parentis and removal of content on any article I see had damn well have a real reason behind it because Won't someone think of the children! cuts no ice with me or with bedrock Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relax, breathe, calm down, and don't make this into a big deal when it's not. G-DD--N, people on here are touchy about their porn. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'm "touchy" about editors seeking to contravene well-established policies and guidelines and then trying to act like the person reacting to their campaign is constipated. I'm "touchy" about editors going into GA-class articles and unilaterally removing links that have passed that peer-review process with the claim that it links to "porn," when linking to sites with adult content is not prohibited nor even listed as a sort of link to be avoided. I suppose it's easier to dismiss these concerns by suggesting that all I really need to do is take a good dump, and that's certainly your perogative, but I find your actions disruptive and harmful to the project and you've said nothing here that indicates to me that you have any real interest in improving Wikipedia but are interested instead in purifying it according to your personal standards of decency. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wise woman wrote on my talk page: ":Hey APK, I suggest you post about this at WT:P*, since it's that project's standards you're using, and it seems reasonable to refer critics of your work to discuss it there. If they don't like the standard, that's where they should try to change it, not with you as an individual. Aleta (Sing) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)" I agree...and the "disruptive and harmful to the project" line is real cute. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't know about removing links to porn sites - the whole List of male performers in gay porn films debacle really soured me on that topic, so I won't comment. However, given the fact that a single porn star can be listed as "appearing in" 100 movies a year or something ridiculous like that, and given that each film is about as likely to be notable as each Romance novel is, limiting the number of titles is, IMO, a Good Thing™. But you're right, Otto - six is an arbitrary number, and PORNBIO is a guideline, so some leeway is advisable. And guys - stop the pot shots at eachother, K?thx bai. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a large videography may unbalance an article, and suggest that the solution to that problem is to split it into a filmography article rather than deleting it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabercil wrote on my talk page: "I'm one of the participants in WT:P* and I would suggest you take a look in the archives of the Talk page regarding discussions about the "six film" rule. It's been a source of contention in the past, and it's probably still a valid issue of discussion. Look here, here and here for three of the discussions we had on the topic... there may be more which escape my memory. Mind you the talk at the time was geared toward the breeder side of the market. <G>" AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more in agreement with Otto4711 on this. 6 is an arbitrary number (whereas 3 is a magic number). If we evidence that a scene has been lifted and recirculated then we can simply tie those two film together. There are multiple ways to address this issue but simply hacking away at lists in articles doesn't seem entirely helpful. I'm also concerned who decides which six? I think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis if there is a strong desire to delete material. Benjiboi 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one person agrees with me. Also, for those that read the above discussion...a civility attempt was made on Otto4711's talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So cut it down to six and if the number creeps up a bit, let it go. Eight (or even 10) is still better and more concise than the lists of 30 I've seen on some. Incivility, of course, is still not acceptable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with "So cut it down". Unless you are quite familiar with an actor's full body of work you're putting yourself in the seat of a knowledgeable biographer determining which handful is fully representative of their work and career. I also sense disparagement against porn as something just to jerk off to. If that's how you see it fine but that is hardly a world view. This, to me, also seems generally dismissive of pornography actors in general and perhaps sexphobic or otherwise inspired by puritanical morality. These articles should be improved through regular editing. A list of an actor's work is valid and we should treat it encyclopedicly not just hack what we somehow deem as just a bit too much. Benjiboi 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming me or some of these other guys are "sexphobic" is like claiming Paris Hilton is sexphobic. I love men. I love sex with men. I love watching videos of men having sex with men. I also think listing every single porn movie these guys have been in is not encyclopedic because most of these movie aren't noteworthy (as in they didn't receive a GayVN award for it...most porn movies are quickly and easily made, so they're not like mainstream movies). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, please avoid claiming we are inspired by "puritanical morality." WP:AGF I agree those articles should be improved through regular editing. Most of the articles are full of OR and uncited claims. They're a mess. But simply listing all of the movies doesn't make the article any better...the actual content of the article should be focused on instead of naming countless porn titles (some of the articles also list the entire cast of the movie...which i don't understand). AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email today addressed to Dear User of Wikipedia, claiming to be from the OECD Development Centre www.oecd.org/dev. They were inviting involvement in a gender equality wiki site, www.wikigender.org (which appears to require login to view). I suspect from the wording that they're interested in equality between male and female and not the slightest bit interested in transgender issues. I'm wondering if others have received similar emails. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of it. Aleta (Sing) 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked your link, and got the login box as well. I'm not about to try to register for a page for which I can't even see an initial screen. I tried googling on wikigender and wikigener.org: neither had any results. Aleta (Sing) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same email: Dear User of Wikipedia, You have created or modified an article related to “gender equality”. We would like to inform you that the OECD Development Centre (www.oecd.org/dev) has recently introduced a new wiki-based Internet platform exclusively focused on gender equality, called Wikigender (www.wikigender.org). If you are interested in joining this initiative and sharing your knowledge with other experts of gender equality, please contact us at contact@wikigender.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. The OECD Wikigender Team is what mine said. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd...but I'm not about to register for a site before viewing...If someone does, let us know what it's about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don't recall having edited any "gender equality" articles. Could have been during my vandal patrol, but nothing on purpose. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that e-mail as well. At least it's an unusual form of article-related spam. No one's calling me names. ;) Kolindigo (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the exact same email. I didn't edit a "gender equality" article, but I have edited some gender studies related articles. It said if your interested in an account to email them back and I did. We'll see what happens, if anything. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the referenced part about homosexuality AGAIN, as per [6] - well this shows my putting it back.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for the user that removed it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this and figured some of you may be interested: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Coming out euphemisms - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please get someone who has had no previous involvement in the article homosexual transsexual to have a look at the article and it's talk page. I'm very concerned that the article about this controversial term has been seriously skewed to make the term appear acceptable, which would mean that the article has a serious POV problem. I think that it may be a one-person effort similar to that attempted in the article shemale a while ago by the now indefinitely blocked user vinay412 and his sockpuppets. I'd like some independent objective input because I'd like to know if I'm over-reacting. My best NPOV solution for this article would be AfD or reduce to stub and merge elsewhere. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stepped in to address the image issue. Is the article still unbalanced? Benjiboi 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've just copied one statement into the article from what is nominally supposed to be a summary of the article at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy#Criticism of the Homosexual transsexual hypothesis but I think that it still needs considerable work to be NPOV. I won't be surprised if that addition gets reverted out... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this comment to the Biographies of living persons project page. It addresses difficulties in updating an article for performer Heather Alexander who now performs as Alexander James Adams. I believe the current article for Heather Alexander can be used as a model for editing biographical articles of others who transition. It would be nice if the LBGT project could weigh in on the current lack of guidelines with regards to transgender individuals, and provide constructive suggestions on what such guidelines should include. Thanks! TechBear (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji recently added our project banner to Mr. Herbert (Family Guy). I strongly object, but wanted to see if others had opinions on the subject. IMO, he's a pedophile which is totally different from LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the banner is inappropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second that...very inappropriate. Homophobes will use that as an excuse to link pedophilia with homosexuality. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance at the article (I'm not familiar with the character, and have only watched a couple episodes of the show), it sounds to me like he is both gay and a pedophile. One need not imply the other. Yes, the ignorant will use the fact that he's both to make an incorrect association, but it is our job to educate. Also, don't we tag pederasty articles? (Not the same phenomenon, perhaps, but related.) Aleta (Sing) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's more correctly a gay ephebophile whose pedophilic interest in Stewie may or may not be notable as Stewie was covering his older brother's paper route just the one time. This is a prime-time adult animated series which means teenagers worldwide (via original broadcasts and voluminous YouTube postings of clips and whole episodes) see the show and characters. Our tag doesn't say we endorse ephebophilia, pedophilia or any frm of child-abuse. Our tag also doesn't vote whether we think it's good that this TV show has flawed but still gay characters. It simply informs those who make it to the talk page that we have an interest in the article and can serve as a resource. Benjiboi 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have another category, for homophobic depictions of gay characters. Haiduc (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he really gay? Pedophile seems to be true. Ephebophile I doubt, since he seems to be attracted to Stewie, who is a year old. But I haven't seen anything saying he's gay. Mind you, I don't watch the show, so I'm only going on what I've read. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of him being gay is a fairly new edit...by an anonymous IP. The character is an ephebophile because his molestation attempts have been mostly directed to Chris Griffin. I've seen just about every episode (yes, make fun of me...i need a life) and I'm not sure saying he's gay is completely accurate. Herbert is a child molestor and cross dresser, not gay. One can argue that being either one of those is synonymous with being gay, but that's not always the case. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An aging swish with a lisp, who wears fey clothes and tries to grope teenagers - looks like a caricature of a gay man if I ever saw one. The intent is what matters. And here the intent seems to be to parody homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(*spluttering*) Wha? I say, for the love of cannibals, what a hideous conflation - pederasty is not tantamount to being gay. And just an FYI, Chris is prepubescent throughout a number of seasons (until he gets the killer zit). --Phyesalis (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not sure where to announce this but I've nominated Category:Christian LGBT people for renaming. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_23#Category:Christian_LGBT_people. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]