Talk:LGBTQ

"LGBTP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBTP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § LGBTP until a consensus is reached. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"LGBTZ" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBTZ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17 § LGBTZ until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

Under the headings "Variants":

"Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places the "L" (for "lesbian") first." → The more widely known version of "LGBT" has L before G due to historical reasons and should be explained:

During the AIDS pandemic of the 1980s and 1990s, many gay men died. The ones that did not die were struggling to survive. Lesbians began gathering together and caring for gay men with AIDS/HIV. Lesbians nursed them, took care of them, donated blood to them , provided food, clothing and shelter for them. At this time, this was significant because they were not unified together like they are today. They often were against each other. The first acronym was GL, soon after adding the B and then the T.

Many gay mens lives were saved by lesbians. Gay men put the L in front of the G and started using the term “LGBT” instead of “GLBT” as a way to thank lesbians and for everything they did. ACqq (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now:Multiple concerns here. First, the first paragraph is only supported by a single source which is just an another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable, so you probably should find a reference for the 1st part. The 2nd paragraph is a WP:REFBOMB and the amount of references should be cut down at at least 3 or 4. Might be worth checking if some sources are not usable, by looking for the source's entry on WP:RSP. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"QTPOC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect QTPOC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 6 § QTPOC until a consensus is reached. Un assiolo (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to LGBTQ at this time, per the discussion below, while recognizing that a significant minority of editors preferred LGBTQ+. This move may require changes to the article text to conform to the new title, and may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

LGBT → LGBTQ – Google ngrams has now released their newest dataset to 2022, so the time has come since the last discussion last year in June 2023 which already trended in the direction of LGBTQ, but was held of in light of not having enough clarity if LGBTQ had determinstically overtaken LGBT (with the old ngram data having been only up to 2019, where it was clear LGBTQ was on the path, but not over it yet. Well, we now have the latest Ngram data up to 2022 and shows that indeed this trend was confirmed and LGBTQ has squarely overtaken LGBT and furthermore, LGBT is on a now clear downwards trend since 2017. Google Scholar also supports this in the scholarly field with LGBTQ showing 20,000 results in recent years, versus LGBT a 17,800 results. Raladic (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support rename due to popularity in published sources and inclusivity. lizthegrey (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It seems fair enough that the Anglosphere uses LGBTQ more than other languages. Or at least LGBTQ+/LGBT+ with plus sign. See also this list. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support renaming to LGBTQ since finding a source with only LGBT is getting pretty hard. win8x (talking | spying) 00:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom (i.e., WP:COMMONNAME). SilverLocust 💬 06:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for LGBTQ+. As described in WP:COMMONNAME, a key criterion is precision - the title should unambiguously identify the article's subject. LGBTQ+ makes it clear that the subject is the broader range of identities commonly covered by the initialism.--Trystan (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: To accurately represent the entire community, seems like a necessary change. Waqar💬 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Move to LGBTQ+, because we might as well. As a functional umbrella term, it's incomplete without the Plus. Ngrams doesn't track punctuation in this way, so it would be useful to query other sources on this matter. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes unfortunately none of the sources we typically use to inform this accurately track punctuation and consider LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ synonymous in most cases. Though I agree, I'd prefer LGBTQ+ for more explicit completeness, it was just harder to suggest in my initial move proposal to make sure that the + doesn't become the stumbling block itself as at a minimum the expansion to Q has been long overdue. Trystan's point above is a very good one that the argument for the + is to make it unambiguously clear that it is about the wider community, just as all our articles already have discussed it for many years. Raladic (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, Google Ngrams does allow you to search for some non-punctuation symbols like +. You just need to use brackets around a search term containing + - * / to indicate you aren't asking it to do math. Per Google Ngrams, LGBTQ+ is less common than LGBTQ and LGBT.

  You can also search Google News or Google Books for "LGBTQ" OR "LGBTQ+" to see results for both. SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, including the plus, per RoxySaunders and Raladic. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose LGBTQ and LGBTQ+. I'm aware that this is going to pass in a blizzard, that the only PAG upon which my argument can be based is IAR, that it ignores the valid above arguments, that it runs afoul of NOTCENSORED and, arguably, PRECISE. However, I've been called "queer" as a slur more times than I care to count. I'm hardly alone in this. It's hurtful, even if "reclaimed". The viewers of this article can be divided into three nebulous groups: those unfamiliar with the topic or otherwise opinion-less, those pro-LGBT, and those anti-LGBT. For the first camp, such a title encourages them using a (ex-)slur, which could bring back bad memories were it to be used when talking to an older LGBT+ person. For those in the second camp, it is perhaps affirming, perhaps neutral, and perhaps insulting. Those affirmed would nonetheless be affirmed to an equal extent by the term LGBT+, unless they're genderqueer (a minority among minorities, I believe). For those in the third camp, it's a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently, rather than something cruel. If a slaver from 1800 were brought to today and heard a racial slur uttered by a member of the group it was supposed to insult, would they bemoan it being normalized or cheer it on? Sincerely, Dilettante 03:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your hypothetical about slavers is, frankly, weird. The opinion of the oppressor on terms used by the oppressed is irrelevant. It is not for members of the outgroup to police the language of the ingroup; white people don't get to opine whether or not Black rappers use words that sound like (or are) the N-slur that we should not use.

  Homophobes are going to be homophobic irrespective of the title of a Wikipedia article. Someone who is hostile to our community isn't going to care whether or not "queer" is reclaimed any more than they care whether "faggot" or "dyke" are acceptable terms for straight people to use. In just the same way as racists will continue to use the N-slur even though it is widely acknowledged as unacceptable.

  And yes, some people heard "queer" as a slur; other people heard "gay" as a slur — certainly I was called "gay" a lot more than "queer" when I was growing up (in the 1980s and early ’90s in the UK; I'll be 50 next year). I genuinely am sorry that the term still brings you pain and I hope that that pain continues to diminish as we move further away from the unaccepting world of our youth (even while some aspects of the world seem to be moving backwards right now; scary times).

  The most frequently used terms now are LGBTQ or LGBTQ+, as shown by the Ngrams mentioned above. That a minority of our community still consider "queer" to be a hurtful slur doesn't change that it is a widely-accepted term both within our community and without. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly could have been more clear (not least because the year given was off by a century) that I'm not referring to the n-word, but rather a non-English slur. I didn't name it because it was reclaimed without ever having been properly euphemized (as opposed the "n-word" or "f-slur"), and asterisks hardly make a word less rude to those who remember the original.

  Not to invalidate your experiences, or those of others who have been called a slur, but there's a crucial difference between being called the n-word or "gay" as opposed to "fag", "dyke", or "queer". The first two were used by members of the group it insulted as a descriptive word before it became a slur. To refuse reclamation would be to disrespect their (largely much worse) experiences. The other three originated with an outgroup, and to use it is to vindicate them.

  Returning to Wikipedia, the name change allows those moving (or stuck) backwards to use it in the original sense, and, when called out, claim it isn't meant to be hurtful and one is misunderstanding them. Though the title of an enwiki article is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additonal excuse should not be given.

  Thanks for hoping I can further move past it. It seems unlikely, but one never knows. If any such terms hold negative memories for you too, I too hope it gets better. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Q is also for questioning, not just queerness. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dilettante who puts it best. The Q-word is a historic slur still highly offensive to many. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless, LGBTQ(+) is a frequently used acronym—marginally more common than LGBT, and substantially more common than LGBT+).. Many people under the LGBT umbrella identify as queer, and nearly all initialisms beyond LGBT+ include a Q in that position.

  I would that we would not hash out the Perennial Reclaimed Slur Discourse at length here (this occurs enough off-site), because personal offense taken is not a persuasive criteria in RM discussions.

  If "LGBTQ+" were an unacceptable and offensive term we would expect it to occur less frequently in reliable sources and in the Google Books corpus, unless the vast majority of books were written by horrible bigots. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is indisputably offensive to some, just not to the majority. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are various iterations around, getting longer and longer, but the commonest by far is still just LGBT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for LGBTQ even though as per WP:COMMON NAME, it should be LGBTQ+ which returns almost equal but slightly higher number of results. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with first choice for LGBTQ+ per WP:COMMONNAME. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ they are the most common terms as of right now lgbt by its self is insufficient and "queer" while yes could be used in a derogatory way, gay can also be and as of now queer is commonly used by the community so either switch should be fine. Mkdasher64 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Juwan (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of whether a move is appropriate, and if so whether to move to LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A survey of influential topic-specific style guides:

• GLAAD media reference guide (and GLAAD's reporting) uses LGBTQ. LGBT and LGBTQ+ are also used, with the + added in recognition of all non-straight, non-cisgender identities. [...] Both are acceptable, as are other versions of this acronym.
• The AP Stylebook revised in March 2023 to use LGBTQ+.[1]
• TJA Stylebook and Coverage Guide doesn't prescribe an acronym, but consistently uses LGBTQ+.
• NLGJA Stylebook favors LGBTQ+, calling it acceptable in all references. It calls out some alternatives LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQIA as potentially less inclusive, more cumbersome or unfamiliar to general audiences and that writers should decide for themselves [...] whether more or less specificity is needed.. In 2023, the NLGJA changed its name to use LGBTQ+ over LGBTQ.

At least in the context of journalistic style manuals, things have moved pretty strongly in favor of LGBTQ+ since 2022. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like good convincing argument to favor LGBTQ+ over just LGBTQ.

Plus this way we only may have to do this rename once for a long foreseeable future, since as a follow up to this there’ll be a lot of renames across the board for other related articles that all followed the principal of using what this article here uses. Raladic (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support as I have not seen anyone use simply "LGBT" in quite a while, thus WP:COMMONNAME with the higher number of returned results. It's also more inclusive Witsako (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support LGBTQ following the ngrams evidence. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per google scholar hits, LGBTQ is the most commonly used term (38,600 hits since 2019), LGBT is the second most commonly used term (36,900 hits since 2019), and LGBTQ+ is the least commonly used term (14,800 hits since 2019). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Move, to LGBTQ+ (preferred) or LGBTQ (acceptable). Strong evidence that Q is typically included now (well established), and often + as well (not clear it's strongly more used, though it might be). "Q or Q+" seem COMMONNAME now. So I'm persuaded to include + by RoxySaunders, that it's what professional standards are, and given there's not evidence "Q substantially more common than Q+", I don't see a reason to be less inclusive. DMacks (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ as the one who closed the last RM as no consensus. Ngrams is unreliable (see last RM), but the Scholar results here give the edge to LGBTQ. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  The last RM did not find that ngrams is unreliable? It only found that the 2019 English corpus had LGBTQ at slightly greater usage than LGBT in 2019. We know have access to ngrams data up to 2022 which shows LGBTQ passing and clearly surpassing LGBT. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to LGBTQ or LGBTQ+. LGBTQ is now more common than LGBT (WP:COMMONNAME), and it is more inclusive.

Mast303 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.