The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
I don't think we can do anything with this... Neither the Baptist Press or RSVP America which published the underlying report are reliable sources in that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My point is not that I agree with the Southern Baptists, and I don't, really - my point is that this is not a settled topic, the essence of this article is heavily politically biased, and it should be either deleted or merged into a larger article about LGBT. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not how this works. The Wikipedia article is about LGBT allegedly grooming people into becoming LGBT. Which there is no persuasive evidence for. That Baptist Press article is just a misinterpretation of male-male molestations (many of which are carried out by males who do not have attractions to males nor children). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So your defence is is asserting that males sexually assaulting males are not necessarily. . . attracted to males. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Do you see the mental gymnastics you are making to defend such a worldview as unbiased? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or perhaps I happen to be quite familiar with the scientific literature. A large fraction of people who molest children do not have any attraction to children, or arousal patterns for children (this can be tested in a lab with penile plethysmography). Some men molest children because they have issues with psychopathology, drug use, alcoholism, lack of access to an adult partner etc. Molestation of boys is more common in cultures where males are segregated away from females, for example. And anyway, homosexual pedophiles show strong arousal to prepubescent boys not adult men, while homosexual teleiophiles show arousal to adult men and not prepubescent boys. Nobody calls a heterosexual pedophile a 'straight man', it's also illogical to do the same for homosexual peodphiles and gay men. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If thats your point then you need to bring reliable sources to the table. See WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the article content and the bulk of the references at the bottom for the article, they use the term LGBTQ, so I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial bold move by the mover (@Lewisguile) that is in line with our policies. They cited consub in the move, butasI said, looking at the article content and refs, this also seems to be supported by them. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, which is why the mover cited WP:CONSUB with the parent article. Not every single page move has to be subject to an individual RM, if it appears to be supported in line with our policies, then editors can WP:BOLDly move articles. As I mentioned above already, this appears to be one such case sinc almost all the refs used in this article use the term LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
IS it? as this seems to be a conspiracy about solely TG people, not the queer community (in general). It is related yes (hence why we can make it part of the same project and have see also pages. But is it the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's a pretty clear path forward for those that think this move is unsupported by policy. Consult WP:CONSUB's exception: "where a specific subtopic has its own common name, which is therefore likely to be the more natural or recognizable title". If a review of sources about this subject shows that "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, we should move it back. I don't think that's the case, but anyone is free to look into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lets make this clear, I am not necessarily against the move, but I would have liked to see the arguments (see my comment above about this being about TG (not gay) people). Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to reply to you directly, @Slatersteven, Raladic hit the nail on the head. There was an RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ, and based on WP:CONSUB, I WP: BOLDly moved this one. I apologise if this has created any confusion.
This is a risk of going into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but there is question as to how genuine those organisations are. Certainly they are fringe organisations and not repreentative of a significant proportion of LGB people. The UK equivalent the LGB Alliance is notorious for rarely campaigning on Lesbian and Gay issues and mainly being an anti trans group with LBG issues being a pretext. Membership figures have shown only a minority in that organisation are LGB. While it is true some Gay and Lesbian people feel they don't want to associate, it's not a significant number, compared to cis straight people wanting to use it as a wedge to attack LGBTQ in smaller, more managable groups.
That's what Slatersteven was asking for, but this talk page is about the scope of this article and I defended the inclusion of other letters in the title. --MikutoHtalk!23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah OK, sorry, thanks for the clarification. In which case yeah such organisations are likely to balk at the queer label as much as they rail against trans people and allies.Rankersbo (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 days ago29 comments9 people in discussion
The lead states: "The notion that LGBTQ people, or those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse is a far-right conspiracy theory and anti-LGBTQ trope."
This may seem petty, but what is the purpose of such a ridiculous claim? LGBTQ people, as well as those "supportive of LGBTQ rights," do engage in child grooming, as does every other group of people. Would it not be more appropriate to say it is a far-right conspiracy theory that they disproportionately engage in child grooming—or that the community as a whole is supportive of it? Swinub★17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it does not. The statement is based on the far-right trope that all LGBTQ+ people and rights orgs are pedophiles or enabling child sexual abuse. It's an unfounded conspiracy theory meant to slander an entire group of people. The far-right does not distinguish or claim it's a "disproportionate" number, they trope is to label all LGBTQ+ people as child abusers.
It is, in fact, just their way of claiming that educating children on the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals is itself child abuse. In that world, there is no situation where an LGBTQ+ person can be out without "abusing" a child by their mere presence. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The statement says what the statement says, which is false. Yes, far-right people claim that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles, and yes, that is an unfounded conspiracy theory. That is not what I am arguing against. Swinub★18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Precisely for the reasons you mention, it is obvious that the first sentence is refuting a generalizing claim. "LGBTQ people, or those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse" is clearly making a statement about LGBTQ people and allies as a group, and that is what the sentence addresses. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It can do so without making a false claim. Clarifying that the far-right conspiracy theory is that all or disproportionate amounts of them are grooming children or enabling child sexual abuse would correct this. Swinub★18:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Conspiracy theory is that this represents a specific meaningful direct (and exclusive) threat to children in a way nothing else does. It is not just that Some LGBTQ are a threat, or even all. It is that they are the only threat that needs special attention. That is what the issue is, and why if we change the wording we are in fact watering down the criticism of it. And with that I am out of his with a resounding no. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You've not, nor has anyone else. I would expect users on the English Wikipedia to have a better grasp of the language to understand what is wrong with the opening sentence and why it does not reflect the point of the article. This should not be contentious. Swinub★19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where are the sources that such an extreme and unlikely, empirically obviously false conspiracy theory actually currently exists? I had the same problem as Swinub when reading the article.
Avoiding "more likely" or "dispoportionately" makes the article sound like it's putting up an extreme strawman instead of grappling with the idea/prejudice that gay men are more likely than hetero men to molest/groom children. In fact the article helps LBGT haters by giving the distinct impression that actually, there is such a disproportionality, because if there weren't, the article wouldn't so carefully eschew any claim beyond that it's not emprirically true that all gay/trans men are child molesters. 188.97.63.97 (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that this is a valid concern (the meaning is obvious, especially with the additional details in the rest of the lead) but I do think the first sentence is a bit awkward. Wouldn't it make more sense to reorder it into the more standard The LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory is a far-right conspiracy theory and anti-LGBTQ trope stating that LGBTQ people, and those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse? I'm not sure "stating" is the right word (it could also be "in which" or "according to which" or something of those lines) but you get the idea. --Aquillion (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alleging is better. This seems like more direct language, although it does use conspiracy theory twice in so many words. But that's not necessarily a major problem. Lewisguile (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The second sentence literally clarifies what this means. Adding the caveats misses the point and waters down the actual conspiracy theory. Lewisguile (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would it not be more appropriate to say it is a far-right conspiracy theory that they disproportionately engage in child grooming—or that the community as a whole is supportive of it – but that isn't the conspiracy theory. What is being claimed (e.g. by Libs of TikTok) is that transgender people being around children, or a drag queen reading a story, constitutes child grooming. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Swinub here. The current wording could be made more precise. The sources do actually state that the conspiracy is all LGBTQ people, so I can't see why we wouldn't just state that. Comes across a little NPOV otherwise...IMO. Riposte97 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think perhaps this is getting a bit muddled.
When the opening says "LGBTQ people" without qualification, that means LGBTQ people generally—i.e., all of them or most of them.
Swinub is arguing that we should change it to "LGBTQ people disproportionately engage in..." when that isn't what the sources say. "Disproportionately" is the same as saying "some" (or at least "more than average"), which is less than "all". If you see what I mean?
So I think you're actually agreeing for the status quo. (Adding all isn't necessarily a bad idea, although if some sources say "all" and others say "most", it might end up getting removed again anyway. I'd prefer we just leave it as "LGBTQ people".) Lewisguile (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hah sorry that's my bad. 'Do' should be 'don't' in my response. I won't edit my comment now as that would make this doubly confusing! The reason it needs to be stated that we aren't talking about all LGBTQ people is, as Swinub says, that it is just factually incorrect if read at face value. Riposte97 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But the sources don't say that and they don't qualify it in that way. The sources just refer to accusations about LGBTQ people generally. That's the point. The idea is that they believe the very presence of LGBTQ people is a threat to children—not some, not many, but any LGBTQ people at all. Lewisguile (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As stated more than once, that is the point. It's the claim that all LGBTQ are a threat, all of the time. And not it is not "disproportionately" either, its is tey are the only threat you need to be concerned about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the claim has nothing to do with disproportionately. As I noted, a transgender person talking to a child is enough to constitute "grooming" in the eyes of LOTT. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that it doesn't technically say "all" either; it just says "LGBTQ people" (meaning, "in general", "as a group", "as a whole", "as a people"). The whole point is that this is a trope/stereotype, so it's a broad assumption applied to a whole category of people. Therefore, that wording is correct.
Crucially, it also reflects the consensus among RSes, who don't quantify the statement in that way either—presumably because doing so would be to pretend that this is a rational opinion based on logic, rather than a stereotype based on prejudice.
Since you don't seem to be engaging with the substance of our explanations and keep repeating the same point in response, there's a risk this is going to descend into WP:BLUDGEONING. So we should just agree that there's no consensus to change this wording and move on.Lewisguile (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that I didn't say you were bludgeoning. But the arguments against the opening sentence (and I don't just mean yours) are substantially the same and seem to ignore the points others have raised, such as:
1. This is how RSes describe the situation and no one has provided RSes showing the contrary.
2. A stereotype is a sweeping statement by its nature. That's the point.
3. We don't need to refute the stereotype; we just need to describe what it is and how RSes deal with it.
4. The second sentence already deals with disproportionality.
.svg){kind=small}
