Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Hi!

Please help us decide the best way to credit the Wachowskis in articles about their films.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Was just about to leave the same note, but I see you beat me to it. I'll just reiterate from Wanda that any input is appreciated. Rab V (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Cece Telfer (transwoman athlete)

• Cece Telfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have created a stub, mainly due to international press interest. However I am very much aware of 1E, and that this might well be a candidate to get merged, somewhere. More eyes would be much appreciated, along with expansion. I have yet to spot any interviews with Telfer, she may have been advised to avoid it, what with the breathtaking levels of press hostility to trans issues in America right now. Actually, let's just call it open bigotry and anti-trans witch hunting, because that is exactly what I keep seeing in print. --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Does the MOS decide pronoun use?

I'm looking for input on changes to an article, John/Eleanor Rykener. The "Gender identity" section of the MOS clearly supports using the gender pronoun that the individual in question wished to use. Rykener is an individual who lived in the 1400s and whose self-descriptions are limited to court records. That's problematical, as the court may not have allowed Rykener to use the female pronouns Rykener preferred.

The article was peer reviewed and passed FA Review, and was the Featured Article on January 19, 2019. The article's primary editor defended their use of the pronoun "he" by saying "that's what most sources use". That rationale, however, appears to go against what Rykener herself wanted. I raised the issue on the article Talk page, but at least one other editor claims that Rykener's preferred pronoun is "in dispute" by other editors (ignoring the MOS). Moreover, one of the editors in question talks about "PC" language, which has my warning signals up.

I would think that the MOS rules in these cases, absent some overwhelming rationale. Am I wrong? - Tim1965 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Tim1965, historical cases like these are very challenging. See this discussion at the James Barry (surgeon) talk page. Because of the dispute with that article, editors decided to avoid gender pronouns. Editors can't just go by the pronouns they think a subject preferred. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tim1965: I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that these situations are difficult. For anyone spending most of their life before the terms transgender or transsexual were invented in the 1960s, especially so. My feeling is that these cases must be handled on a case-by-case basis. There are other examples of articles besides James Barry where editors decided to avoid pronouns as much as possible, but this is not an obvious solution, and is not a slam dunk. Agree heartily with "Editors can't just go by the pronouns they think a subject preferred." At a minimum, you'd need an Rfc to establish consensus before switching to the opposite pronoun, or even for eliminating pronouns, but you could also start with an informal poll, just to see where people stand. Although looking at the current talk section there, I see more push-back than support. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Although historical cases are often complicated, I disagree that there is anything complicated about the James Barry case. He used male pronouns in both his professional and private life, and he tried (and failed) to arrange things so that his body would not be examined after death... which is to say, his dying wish was that he would not be misgendered after death. Using male pronouns is not, in that case, making a guess: it's honoring his explicit wishes. But at least his article doesn't actively misgender him and, anyway, after the Wachowski RfC, I might need some time to recuperate before I wander into any more hornets' nests. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Archive bot

I have a technical question. I'd like to add an archive bot to the talkpage of another WikiProject. What should I copy and paste please? Only "auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30" with double waves?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Front hole article

Just letting editors here know that Front hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• ^^ #Should_front_hole_remain_a_redirect_or_is_this_a_notable_neologism? --Fæ (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but that IP was shut down. So editors likely quickly moved past the matter. I see that you and the IP even disagreed on whether mention of the topic belonged here. Days later, an account came along and recreated the article and started a discussion on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on how to treat names of trangender drag queens for articles about RuPaul's Drag Race

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#RfC_on_names_of_transgender_contestants

Several contestants were not out as trans women during filming and initial airing of their seasons but have since come out as trans women. There is a debate as to how articles about the seasons of Drag Race should refer to these contestants' non-drag names. Discussion and feedback at the link above is welcome. Umimmak (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It Gets Better (book)

Has anyone here read It Gets Better (book) please? I need to know if it mentions the long-term side effects of trauma. And if it does, we should mention them.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:It Gets Better (book).Zigzig20s (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

LGBT liaison officer

LGBT liaison officer needs a major clean-up.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd case

Can I draw some eyes (and, especially, research) over to the R. Hoskins talk page? There's a bit of an odd case, where a person apparently is or was trans, but seems to still use (as of 2019; and as of 2017 is claimed to have requested that WP also use) their birth name and pronouns. Research into how many (and which) of those "apparently"s are correct would help determine what we should do. -sche (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender at Wikidata for drag queens

I just started a new discussion at Talk:Sasha Velour re: Sasha Velour being marked as female at Wikidata. Realizing there may be confusion about gender for drag queens at Wikidata, I'll ask more generally, are any editors aware of conventions for drag queens at Wikidata? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This came up a while ago at Women in Red. It's... a strange problem with regard to Wikidata. Many drag queens are "males dressed as females" and don't necessarily live as a female as a mtf transgender person might. GMG^talk 22:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, Right, but at the same time, there's every combination of preferred pronouns for when queens are in or out of drag. For example, some drag queens may be nonbinary (Valentina) or trans female (Peppermint), or their drag personas may not identify as female.

Of course we want to treat gender identities at the individual level, but I guess I was thinking more along the lines of, are Wikidata entries able to have multiple gender entries, or is there a way to clarify birth names and gender vs. drag name and gender? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The property you're looking for is sex or gender (P21) and you can see the values it accepts at that page. I expect that for most drag queens, the persona they portray on-stage would be treated similarly to a fictional character portrayed by an actor/actress. Again, most drag queens don't "live" as their drag queen persona, they portray that character on-stage. There may be exceptions, and if those are well documented and meet d:WD:N then they may need to be added. GMG^talk 22:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender at Wikidata (more broadly)

I don't know much about how Wikidata works but that gender category seems a little out of date. You have to chose between "female" and "transgender female"? Surely the question of whether someone identifies as "male"/"female"/etc. should be considered separately from whether they identify as "cisgender"/"transgender"? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still a WikiData noob. But you can always start a discussion at d:Wikidata:Project chat. GMG^talk 01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

--

There's a similar issue when it comes to intersex people, who may be intersex women, or intersex trans men, etc, but apparently (judging from e.g. wikidata:Q3301723) are not allowed to be simultaneously classified as "men" and "intersex": I see Trankuility pointed out that issue at wikidata:Property talk:P21#Sex_and_gender_data_are_wrong. Some of the problem seems to stem from the property's conflation of sex and gender, which in turn seems to be a compromise based on the fact that some editors want to classify by sex, but other editors point out (correctly, elsewhere on that page and in other discussions) that the chromosomes, genitalia, etc of almost everyone is unknown, only their gender is known (chromosomes weren't even 'discovered' until recently, and even today most people have never had theirs tested), so a purely "sex" property could almost never be validly used. Both 'intersex/non-intersex status' and 'trans/cis status' should probably be separate from 'gender', although what would be done with e.g. non-binary people who are not (on the level of gender) men or women like Mal Blum, vs non-binary women like Rebecca Sugar? I've added a subsection header since we're straying off the OP's topic. Let's think through what changes to the structure we should suggest over on Wikidata, so we can be sure that what we propose can handle cases like the two I just mentioned. -sche (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

My recommendation might be to keep everything under the "gender" property but change it so that multiple statements are allowed. (Currently only a single statement is allowed and you can't even use qualifiers). Here's what that might look like:

• Lana Wachowski: female, transgender

• Jeffrey Tambor: male, cisgender

• Neil Patrick Harris: male

• Ma-Nee Chacaby: two-spirit

• Mal Blum: nonbinary

• Rebecca Sugar: nonbinary, female

• Hanne Gaby Odiele: female, intersex

• Mauro Cabral Grinspan: male, transgender, intersex

...Alternatively, the format could be: one single statement + qualifiers, like this:

• Jeffrey Tambor: male (qualifier: cisgender)

• Rebecca Sugar: nonbinary (qualifier: female)

• Mauro Cabral Grinspan: male (qualifiers: transgender, intersex)

• (etc.)

Notes: 1. In my view, strong preference should be given to current self-identification. For example, a trans woman should not be listed under both "female" and "male" but just "female". 2. We probably shouldn't guess in cases where someone hasn't self identified. Is Neil Patrick Harris cis? I assume so, but I don't know if he's on record saying so, so perhaps he should just be listed as "male". 3. I agree with the person on the Wikidata gender talk page who suggested splitting the "gender and sex" category into two categories: "non-human sex" and "human gender" 4. I found a set of guidelines about how to categorize people by gender that may be of interest. 5. I feel like I barely understand Wikidata or what it's used for exactly so take my suggestions with a grain of salt. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Allowing multiple statements would work. Another alternative, besides that or qualifiers, would be to just expand the list of acceptable statements so that besides "transgender male" there would also be "intersex transgender male", "intersex male", "cisgender male", etc. This might involve the least change to the current setup, but would also require a vast expansion to cover all the combinations. (Obviously, there are benefits and drawbacks to all of these approaches.) I agree with you on point 1. Point 3 is a reasonable idea although probably best done as a separate proposal. -sche (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Let's_talk_about_gender WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this - the simplest solution would be to permit multiple responses, in place of a single response. This avoids creation of multiple new compound categories. Trankuility (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I went over there and made my case that transgender/cisgender/etc should be separated out from male/female/etc. Discussion stalled. I went ahead and implemented the changes. They were reverted. *shrug* I guess there's nothing more I can do.

One thing I pointed out over there is that, as things are now, if you do a query for people with occupation: film director and sex or gender: female...transgender female filmmakers will be excluded. You have to perform an additional step to get a complete list of female filmmakers and not just cisgender ones. A good example of how a collection of data might seem unbiased and coldly factual but will often be anything but. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

List of slurs

The project may be interested in discussions happening at Talk:List of LGBT-related slurs and edits to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexual and Gender Minority : an umbrella term in use today

How should WP address the fact that for several years the LGBTI community in the US has been named by government offices and in legislation as the Sexual and Gender Minority population? Many universities have renamed their schools using SGM in that name, as did the NIH when opening its division SGMRO in 2015/6. The Federal Register used it this very week. [1]

I think we need to address this matter with some thoughtful conversation.Mrphilip (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the case for some US bodies, but I have yet to come across "SGM" anywhere in the UK. I see no evidence that it is a common English usage, but happy to see where reliable sources have been using it, especially non-US publications. --Fæ (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article somewhere that covers LGBT abbreviations or terminology? (I see LGBT slang, but that's not quite the same thing.) If so, this could be added to it. I see it's already present at SGM and mentioned in Sexual minority. And it's something our sibling project Wiktionary would want to cover, since it's been used in at least enough books to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion: I'll add it to wikt:SGM. :) (I see it in at least a few Canadian books, so it may be North American rather than strictly US?) -sche (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Article - Reclaim Pride Coalition

The Reclaim Pride Coalition (RPC) does not have an article yet on wikipedia. I cannot write the article, because I am involved with the group. Is there a way to request for someone to work on an article about RPC? The website is here https://reclaimpridenyc.org/

Here is some news coverage: https://www.amny.com/news/pride-march-2019-event-1.27508845 https://www.intomore.com/impact/the-reclaim-pride-coalition-is-trying-to-take-back-new-york-citys-pride-march https://www.gaycitynews.nyc/stories/2018/24/reclaim-community-2018-11-22-gcn.html https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-activists-endorse-reclaim-pride-coalition-plan-stonewall-50-march — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andoatnp (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Number of transgender, transsexual and transsexed individual.

Do you know the number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly in the world? Do you know the number of living transsexed inrividual in the world? Do you know the number of transgender in the world? If there are estimates by experts, we should insert these estimates to some articles. --Sharouser (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Three (or more?) articles on LGBT terminology - redundant?

Isn't it redundant that we now have three articles, List of LGBT slang terms, List of LGBT-related slurs, and LGBT slang? (The first one is also very ambiguously named: its name suggests it overlaps with LGBT slang but its lead says it's meant to overlap with List of LGBT-related slurs instead.) Could we merge them into, say, two articles, one for terms used by LGBT people (LGBT slang) and one terms used about LGBT people (basically, a merger of the other two)? -sche (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Tyler, the Creator

In the past three months, I have had to revert three separate additions, by three separate users, of Tyler, the Creator to the list of LGBT hip hop artists in LGBTQ representations in hip hop music. Now, I'm fully aware that there's been speculation about his sexuality in the past year or two, given that he's sometimes addressed LGBT themes in some of his songs, but I can still find no reliably sourced evidence that he's come out as gay or bisexual or queer — this is the closest I can find to any such thing, and even it's not very close, while this source actually delves into the reasons why reading his LGBT-themed lyrics as a personal admission of his own sexuality is problematic at best.

His article does not reliably source anything about his sexuality either, and no source is ever cited to support his addition to the list.

So obviously we have a problem here, I just wanted to solicit opinions about what we should do about it. Should we semi-protect the page for a while, or should we just increase the number of watchlisters keeping an eye on it? Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Consenus needed at Talk:Protests against Proposition 8 supporters

A few days ago an edit request was made at 2008 California Proposition 8 involving the last claim being made in the lede which had no source. The wording needed a slight change so it did not sound like the New York Times was making the claims in a paid "ad" which was a full page with accusations against the LGBT community for violent backlash after the November election. The information was corrected, sourced and I checked to make sure it was in the body of the article (which it was) but also checked another article linked entitled; Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. I noticed that while some sources called the New York Times piece and ad and others called it an opinion piece, I decided to be clear with the wording in the Wikipedia Article, that only referred to the newspaper having an advertisement. Attempts to use neutral wording like "piece" instead of either "ad" or "opinion" piece have been met with edit warring. More eyes could help form a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race

You're invited! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

	WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's Collaboration of the Month for February 2019: Victoria "Porkchop" Parker

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Delta Work is the current collaboration of the month. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The collaboration of the month for April 2019 is.... Snatch Game! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

New gender identity page

Hi all. A new gender identity subpage has been added to the Manual of Style:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (shortcut: MOS:IDINFO).

Discussion about this new section, and about Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines in general, is taking place on its talk page:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group

2 things about the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, a Wikimedia user group that promotes the development of LGBT-related content on Wikimedia projects and community within the Wikimedia movement:

1. There is an ongoing call for all organized Wikimedia groups to select a Strategy Liaison for representation in the Movement Strategy Process. The Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group is searching for a volunteer. I invite project members to review the discussion and role and share any thoughts, or express interest.
2. I see value in making a stronger connection between WikiProject LGBT studies and the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group. I'd like to add a brief mention of the user group with a link to the user group's page at Meta-Wiki. I propose adding, "WikiProject LGBT studies is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, a Wikimedia user group."), somewhere on this project's main page. I'd prefer not to do this unilaterally. I don't foresee any negative impact from associating these two projects with one another, and I think having a link to the user group here is one of the best places at English Wikipedia to make project members aware of one way they might want to be officially represented within the Wikimedia movement. Can we discuss any concerns, or shall we vote?

Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Signpost "humour" essay on personal pronouns

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, regarding a SignPost article on pronouns, which may be of interest to contributors of this Wikiproject. original notice posted by Fæ (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC); wording changed to align with WP:APPNOTE by -sche (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It about a version of the article in userspace. This version includes a supplementary pronoun template. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow up

The next issue of The Signpost is out. Here are two responses -

• Getting serious about humor
• Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, Thanks for your work here, and for providing an update. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride, polices, and The Signpost

I posted a

• Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

in this month's issue of The Signpost. I presented it as a showcase of projects relevant to LGBT+ interest. Check out the full article, but in summary, all of these projects could use comment from people from this board:

• draft proposal for Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy (presented March 2019, thanks Ɱ and Thsmi002)
• Wikimedia New York City's Code of Conduct for events (presented January 2019, thanks Megs and Wiki NYC)
• the Wikimedia Foundation's User reporting system consultation (opened February 2019 thanks to the volunteers who comment)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (presented March 2019, thanks WanderingWanda for showing leadership with this)

Personally, I really enjoy showcasing what other people do and supporting conversations that other people guide. If anyone in WikiProject LGBT+ has anything to say about these or other policies, then please put your comment there. If you feel bold then announce yourself as a member or representative of WikiProject LGBT Studies. Putting the group name out there is in everyone's mutual interest. Thanks to anyone who comments in any direction, including direct support or by pointing out what needs to be better.

Maybe in July / August we can have another article to show off whatever happens with these and June Pride Month. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering the very, very recent behaviour of some of the people still active in editing the latest issue, I have no idea why you believe it is a suitable place for LGBT+ Wikipedians to feel safe contributing. I have made a comment against your Signpost article with a couple of examples. I understand why you think it is good to try and change these things from within, however this is too soon to start using the names of LGBT+ communities as if events of only two weeks ago never happened.

As a place to promote 50 years of Pride, it's jarring. Weirdly wrong. --Fæ (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

--

Thanks for the work you're doing, Bluerasberry. Also a shout-out to T.E.A., who is making good contributions to MOS:IDINFO as well. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

<3 —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 00:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Rasberry for publicizing a lot of disscussions and processes that I was previously unaware of. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 00:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race for deletion

Resolved

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Bears and LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon

Oregon Bears has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Bears.

Additionally, please see related edits and discussion at LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ditto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Foundation (Oregon). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Fred Rogers' sexuality

Should the Fred Rogers article include a paragraph like this?

Rogers' friend William Hirsch told biographer Maxwell King that Rogers said he was "smack in the middle" of the sexuality scale and found both men and women attractive.

Discussion here: Talk:Fred_Rogers#Sexuality

And here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fred_Rogers'_sexuality

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No Gay No Way

No Gay No Way looks sufficiently notable for a referenced start.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Go on then. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: article about human rights lawyer

A discussion about a requested move that this project may be interested in:

Talk:David_Burgess_(immigration_lawyer)#Requested_move_12_March_2019

The proposal is to move "David Burgess (immigration lawyer)" to "Sonia Burgess"

Your input is appreciated! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Connected contributor tag at Pride Northwest

There is a connected contributor tag at Pride Northwest. I've reduced the article down to what I believe is an acceptable stub, and now I'm wondering if the tag should be removed. I invite project members to take a look and weigh in on the talk page, please. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

NYT article on harassment

Just sharing an article that's possibly of interest to project members:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As one of the Wikipedians interviewed for this story, I am grateful to reporter Julia Jacobs for her sensitive reporting on this issue. Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, +1, and as someone who is currently frustrated by an editor targeting some of the LGBT-related articles I've worked on, I appreciate you for taking time to share your experience. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch Thank you for speaking out and in general being a great editor. I admire the work you do here. Rab V (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Funcrunch, so glad you did this. Thank you for contributing and thank you Another Believer for sharing. PureRED | talk to me | 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This was a difficult topic to cover, so nice to find an engaging and accurate article. Hope to see more on the wider aspects of how processes and organizations work and do not work to counter harassment and provide a welcoming environment. I liked the range of voices included. --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was interviewed also. I tried to emphasize that despite Wikipedia's problems, it is also the single most powerful communication channel to which the LGBT+ community has ever had access. I also regret that Wikipedia has more women / LGBT+ / any underrepresented groups' biographies than any other collection and yet everyone's focus is blaming Wikipedia for mirroring the overarching bias that better funded institutions push into the media and Wikipedia. Sometimes I feel like Wikipedia has outmatched all other competitors, and instead of getting praise for being the best in the world, journalists only criticize Wikipedia for not doing better. This kind of negativity spreads the idea that Wikipedia is a net harm rather than an obvious net benefit. That said yes I think everyone at this board gets harassment that ranges from annoying to dangerous. Thanks Funcrunch and RachelWex for speaking out and representing, you did great. Thanks fr:user:Nattes à chat and it:user:Camelia.boban for commenting on Italian and French Wikipedias. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: FWIW, in our correspondence I did mention to the NYT reporter that I feel that much of the hostility toward marginalized people on Wikipedia is a mirror of mainstream society's attitudes about us, sadly. Funcrunch (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Blue Rasberry (talk). One of the things that the authors did not include in the article is what I told them about improvements being made to reporting systems, education around harassment, etc.. in Wikimedia projects. They just wanted to focus on the bad. And they were also surprised to hear that not everyone experiences harassment from a marginalized community doing Wikipedia work. A lot of bullying and bad behavior on Wikipedia originates from bad online communication skills, or people forgetting that their fellow editor is also a human. This is not to take away from the ongoing issues that marginalized editors face, particularly in non-English language Wikipedia environments. RachelWex (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ironic to read this, considering the deliberately unpleasant transphobic cross-wiki abuse targeting me in the last 24 hours. Certainly not every Wikipedian who is openly a woman gets misogynistic abuse, and not every open LGBT+ Wikipedian will ever get harassed. However plenty of our contributors are sufficiently fearful of this type of abuse and harassment to never mention their gender or sexuality on-wiki, or will never edit articles about gender or LGBT+ topics. The abuse is real, and it has wide impact on our projects including those that remain anonymous, even while active LGBT+ Wikiproject members keep focus on the good and want to do the politically effective thing of always talking up the positive.

Is enough being done to change our on-wiki culture, where people are free to deride us as "gender warriors" or automatically and publicly presume we are biased lobbyists on every LGBT+ topic we dare to volunteer to improve? No. --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added this article to Criticism of Wikipedia#Further reading but ideally it would get incorporated into the article text as a reference. Umimmak (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose seperations of LGBT rights and Transgender rights articles.

I propose the seperation of LGBT rights(d:Q17625913) from LGBT rights by country or territory. We may also need to move Transgender rights to Transgender rights by country or territory and seperate Transgender rights. --Sharouser (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop the drafting of the articles proposed. Without a draft it's harder to explain why this would be beneficial. --Fæ (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you just talking about Wikidata, just Wikipedia, or both? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

just wikipedia --Sharouser (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Transgender rights is already a separate article. Transgender rights are mentioned in the LGBT rights article because that article is titled "LGBT rights by country or territory," not "LGB rights by country or territory." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And if we are going to have a "LGBT rights" link, which we should, the designation page for it should cover transgender people in addition to non-heterosexual sexual orientations. As for the other LGBT rights articles that might have "LGBT" in their titles, it's because "LGBT" is the standard initialism for the LGBT community and these articles commonly include material on transgender people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: There are many transgender rights. However, most of contents of the Transgender rights articles pay attention to situations of transgender by country. --Sharouser (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean on splitting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We can categorize transsexed individual in Wikidata.

Adding D:Q58202712(transsexed individual) at medical condition (d:P1050) property enables it. --Sharouser (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The wording here seems off, perhaps using out of date terminology? It makes it sound like someone who has received gender corrective surgery is left with a medical condition. I'm sure that is not the intention of creating these hierarchical properties in Wikidata.

I am left wondering whether we even want to have a more detailed discussion, considering how hostile they routinely are allowed to become on Wikipedia. It may be better to find an advisory/expert body to recommend terminology and definitions, like gender experts at the Wellcome Trust, rather than it being whatever "consensus" a popularity vote can produce.

My worry is that sensible discussion about whether someone having any surgery or hormone treatment will be called "transsexed", like visible cosmetic facial surgery, or whether the term will only apply to someone who has had some type of surgery on their penis or vagina; not a discussion I think that our community can handle well. Plus most transgender people that have had surgery would never discuss this stuff in press interviews, so these (often controversial) properties become unlikely to find multiple reliable sources for.

--Fæ (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed the label to "received gender confirmation surgery" and the description to "To indicate if an individual has received gender confirmation surgery. Should only be used if the individual wishes this information to be public." WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There are non-pathological conditions such as athletic heart syndrome. --Sharouser (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's definitely problematic. For one thing, people's medical information is covered by privacy law — notable/famous transgender people very definitely do not go around telling the media about the status of their genitalia. There are almost never any reliable sources telling us whether a transgender celebrity has had the surgery or not, because that's nobody else's business but their own, and any journalist who tried to go around digging into a celebrity's private medical records without authorization would get their ass sued so fast it would make their genitals fall off. And that's precisely one of the reasons why having gender confirmation surgery is not a prerequisite for having one's gender identity respected. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Shrek The Musical

I don't have any expertise editing LGBT-related topics, but I was thinking that this article deserved a criticism section (or some sort of subheading under reception). There was a controversy with some of the words contained in the script directed at the Big Bad Wolf regarding the usage of a transphobic slur and several news sources covered it. Complaints led to one theatre altering its preformace of the production. I can link to some online sources for this, but I don't know how to cite it on here without messing up the talk page format. Clovermoss (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: but I don't know how to cite it on here without messing up the talk page format — use Template:Reflist-talk. The article in question already had a "Reception" section, so depending on how much there is to write about this topic, it might warrant its own subsection but a paragraph is probably fine. Presumably any changes were made after it was already brought to B'way, yeah? Umimmak (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Yep after B'way, (so far) all I can find about the changes is a Canadian theatre altering their own peformance of the production, not anything officially altered. However, the usage of the word seems to be signifigant.

References

Clovermoss (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: There's also an Academia article that might mention it. I don't have access but since it focuses on the scene and the topic of diversity, there's a good chance it covers it in some way. Clovermoss (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I found a way to access the article. Using "find" on the pdf returns a result at p. 21, but the right-hand page # lists it as p. 169. It mentions what exactly the Big Wolf character says. Here's a quote from the paragraph:

The cross-dressed Wolf (Chris Hoch) and Pinocchio (John Tartaglia), both played with calculated campiness, represent unmistakable gay stereotypes: the former is called “a hot ‘n’ tranny mess,” while the latter, played by an openly gay actor, ends “Freak Flag” with a variation on the queer cheer “I’m wood! I’m good! Get used to it!”

Clovermoss (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So... according to different sources the move seems to be either offensive or praiseworthy. I'm not all that confident with my own editing experience to tackle the topic by myself, but I'm hoping that there could be some dicussion here about what should be done. Clovermoss (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just for convenience, since it's annoying to read articles posted on Academia.edu the Theatre Journal article can be found, open-access, at hdl:1808/14779. Umimmak (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I found a sources discussing a production other than the 2016 Halifax production, namely the 2018 Oakdale High School production: [2], [3]. And if you want another contemporary reaction, Boris Kachka for New York wrote Now you get to write the rhymes. My favorite in Shrek is “granny dress” with “tranny mess.” [4]. In 2008 public consciousness was just less aware of this as a slur; people just saw it as a reference to Christian Siriano's catchphrase: even “Project Runway” terminology (the Big Bad Wolf refers to himself as “a hot tranny mess”). [5]. I'm not sure where all this would best go in the article. It does see that Music Theatre International has updated the script for what it's worth. Umimmak (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Okay. It's great that you found other soures! I'm not sure where all of it would go into the article either. I don't know if it would work - but maybe there could be a daughter article about critisms? I remember there was an issue with my own school production (not the one here mentioned here, but it was several years ago) which led to changing one of Fiona's lines in I Know It's Today from "I feel a bit bipolar" to "I feel a little moody". Fiona's decisions do change frequently through some of the songs/scenes, but I wouldn't call that an accurate representation of the disorder. There's also just general critcism of the musical that could be mentioned, such as this from the Los Angeles Times. Currently, everything in the reception section is positive and praiseworthy, but that's not the only viewpoint that was expressed in indepedant sources.

I think that what is written here on this page would also be valuable discussion to also on the talk page for the actual article. Could I copy-paste it there while leaving a copy of the dicusson here? Would that mess up sigs? Or should I not add all of this to the talk page for other reasons? Clovermoss (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It would probably be best to maybe link the discussion here and provide an "executive summary" with the citation information to possibly useful sources, just for the benefit of others so they don't have to read all these nested comments. I think an entirely separate article about criticism would be premature; it would definitely be WP:UNDUE weight. I'd welcome you to be WP:BOLD and make the changes yourself, though perhaps people on WP:THEATRE would have advice on how to treat criticism of the book/lyrics which only came up in subsequent licensed productions, not minor productions which themselves were otherwise not WP:NOTABLE. But I think easily the Reception section could easily have a paragraph on subsequent criticism of the book which has arisen due to changing social awareness or whatever; particularly since it seems to have resulted in a lyrics change in the official licensed version. Umimmak (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Ian Alexander (actor) → Ian Alexander

There is an RM discussion on a page that has been tagged as being of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies:

Talk:Ian Alexander (actor)

Thanks for your input. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Input still needed on this. Thanks! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group online meetup April 2019

There will be an online meetup of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group this coming Monday, April 22. Putting a link to the organizing page here, and all are welcome to attend. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Tonie Walsh

Seems to be a fairly important Irish activist. Going through a quick google search, several Irish newspapers cover him (or interviewing him) and I think that these sources could be used to improve the article quite a bit. Also quick note: the only user that has commented on the talk page so far was indef blocked for sockpuppetry and COI editing. I'm mentioned this because they've edited the article - not recently (2009), but still something that might be important to consider. Clovermoss (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction between two articles

The Feminist separatism article and the Radical lesbianism article make different claims about the origin of Radical lesbianism. Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feminist separatism#Origin of radical lesbianism. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice for Feminist Views on Transgender Topics

There is a Request for Comment on a topic relevant to this WikiProject going on at Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics regarding the page templates (and, more broadly, whether the page is NPOV or not). LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Drag Race

There's been a problem in recent weeks with anonymous IPs and/or newly-registered users making edits to RuPaul's Drag Race seasons, to editorialize about how certain queens were either ranked unfairly or robbed. For example, a queen's results in the stats table might be changed to the "shouldabeen" ranking instead of the actual ranking, or might be colour-coded to a whole new key for "the contestant was robbed and got sent home even though she deserved to stay". Although the problem is obviously at its worst on RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11), given that that's the current season, I've also caught a couple of examples of it happening on past seasons as well but not getting detected promptly. Now, obviously I watch the show, but I'm not an expert Drag Race statistician with a good memory for who was high or low in one specific week three or four seasons ago — so for the most part I don't know how to properly verify whether an edit to the results table in a Drag Race article is correct or not.

Are there one or more editors with more expertise, and/or knowledge of where more authoritative sources can be found, who are willing to review the RPDR seasons to ensure that all of the tables are actually accurate? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: the problem got so bad today that I had to temporarily escalate the existing protection on the page from semi to full. I obviously don't want to leave it that way for the entire month, and would prefer to drop it back down as soon as possible, so I requested some input at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11) as to how we could move forward in a way that respected the need to drop the protection back down to a lower level while still acknowledging that semi isn't controlling the problem — but several hours after I posted my comment, there's been no response at all. Could somebody please offer some input one way or the other? Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one person to actually weigh in at all... Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this step Bearcat. I wish I knew more about that show and resources for it, though I do not. I did want to reply with thanks for your efforts. Perhaps if it cannot be kept in order, it needs to be protected for the time being? --- FULBERT (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't help, either, as I too am unfamiliar with the show. If there are not clear and accessible citations for the results in the tables, perhaps the tables (or uncited entries) should be commented out, removed or moved to the talk page(s) until such citations can be found. -sche (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

List of LGBT writers

I've noticed a bit of an issue at List of LGBT writers. It's not an urgent crisis or anything, but it could use a bit of attention.

Specifically, following a recent expansion of the list within the past couple of months, there are now a significant number of writers in the list for whom the only information present in the "genre" column is the word "writer". Since it's specifically a list of writers, however, every person in the list is a writer by definition — so saying "writer" in that context is just silly and redundant and uninformative. What the column is supposed to be doing is specifying the type of writing the person does — novels, poetry, plays, short stories, non-fiction, science fiction, etc. — rather than just saying "writer".

Cleaning it all up is a bigger job than I feel inclined to take on all by myself, however, so I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help convert some writers who have the word "writer" in the genre column to their actual correct genres. They don't all have to be done at once, even just tackling a handful at a time would be helpful. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race Collaboration of the Month - May 2019

	WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's Collaboration of the Month for May 2019: Ongina

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Genderqueer → Non-binary

A requested move discussion is taking place here:

Talk:Genderqueer#Requested_move_1_May_2019

Thanks for your input! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

People by sexuality

Earlier this year, an editor created Category:People by sexuality and Category:Fictional characters by sexuality, partially but not exclusively as new parents for our existing Category:People by sexual orientation and Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation. I'm not convinced that this is necessary, however, in part because of what was selected to sit alongside the existing categories in the new parents: "People by sexuality" places "People by sexual orientation" alongside things like Category:BDSM people, Category:Necrophiles, Category:People self-identified as ex-gay and List of polyamorists, and also alongside Category:Castrated people and Category:Sex offenders until I kiboshed those today, while "Fictional characters by sexuality" goes for Category:Fictional characters involved in incest, Category:Fictional pedophiles, Category:Fictional polyamorous characters and Category:Fictional rapists.

Now, I'm obviously well aware that sexuality and sexual orientation are not precisely synonyms, but rather sexuality encompasses more than just orientation per se — but the distinction between the two terms does not encompass rape or incest or castration at all; paraphilias or fetishes are a separate subtopic of sexuality rather than sexualities in and of themselves; and while monogamy vs. polyamory certainly has a relationship with sexuality, it also isn't a sexuality in and of itself — since there's nothing inherently either monogamous or non-monogamous about human sexual behaviour, monogamy or polyamory is a question of what kind of emotional relationship models people choose to express their sexualities in, rather than sexualities in their own right. So these two categories are definitely a misfire as constituted, but I'm not sure how best to fix it: should we just delete the new categories as not adding anything helpful to the tree, or is there a useful and productive way to fix them? Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Sexual Minorities Archives

This is by no means my area of expertise but I wanted to follow up with a request for comment related to the size and age of the Sexual Minorities Archives in Holyoke, Massachusetts. My understanding is that they are rather old, being founded in 1974, but the claim that they are "one of the oldest" and "one of the largest" seems rather spurious. Someone with a better handle on LGBTQ special collections and archives would be most welcome to contribute to the article and moreover the article talk page. --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

New stub

Preferred gender pronoun

I was rather surprised this did not exist. There are so many sources and so much to say on the subject, but I thought I'd be WP:BOLD and get it started. Note that it is an orphan and probably could use some other links.

jps (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

A discussion on whether Cis and Trans should redirect to Cisgender and Transgender:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Trans#Requested_move_4_May_2019

WanderingWanda (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

NPA potential RFC for gender identification harassment

FYI Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment,_mocking_or_otherwise_disrepecting_someone_on_the_basis_of_gender_identification_and_pronoun_preference --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Article on transmedicalism

Do we have an article about transmedicalist (a.k.a. truscum) beliefs? Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm a little skeptical there would be enough reliable sources for an article about it, though. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Probably not the word "transmedicalism", but the idea that gender self-identification is illegitimate has been espoused in mainstream media here and here. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're going to at least need reliable sources on the word itself, and some responses, in order to make an article about it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of trans subject at STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting

There is a discussion regarding the gender identity, name, and pronouns of a juvenile suspect in this recent shooting. Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, that's an upsetting discussion. I'm going for a walk instead. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns in Infoboxes?

Currently, Infoboxes for people do not include a given person's pronouns (or information about their gender identity). Yet that would appear to be relevant information to know about a person that also should be available at a glance. MOS:IDENTITY states that we refer to anyone using the latest known pronouns / gender identity. It would be helpful to collect and note such information and the infoboxes seem like a good place to do so.

I've posted about this on the Help Desk and there it was suggested that the input from this community would probably be helpful and I agree. Do you think this would be a helpful change and if so, what can I / what can we do in preparation for the discussion on Template talk:Infobox person? --LambdaTotoro (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think for most people, that information is obvious enough we don't need to put it in the infobox. But I do support this for pages about nonbinary people, trans people who have just announced their transition, and controversial cases like the Chevalier d'Eon where we ought to have a place to explicitly note what pronouns we're going with. (I am, however, a little worried about the possibility that such a section might get used to implicitly doubt the genders of binary trans people? I worry that we might end up putting pronoun information on the pages of famous trans people like Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox, but not on the pages of cis people, which IMO would be implying that trans people's genders aren't as "real"? This is just a far future concern though, I'm still for adding this.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to do this. In the vast majority of cases, it will be clear from the text of the article which pronouns are to be used to refer to the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Homosexual lifestyle and Gay lifestyle redirects

Homosexual lifestyle and Gay lifestyle, which both currently redirect to Homosexual agenda, have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Homosexual agenda Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Striking this section, pending resolution of malformed Rfd. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I would generally caution against striking out other people's posts. Thryduulf probably doesn't mind, but it goes against WP:TPO, which states Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning (bold retained from guideline page). I will also note striking is commonly used to eliminate sockpuppets' comments from discussions, so that's an extra reason to stay away from using it on other's posts. You can always inform someone about about a mistake in their post and allow them to choose to strike it out themselves. Edit (10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)): Nonsense wikilawyering. What correlation does striked sockpuppet comments have with striking comments in general? These are clearly two separate contexts, because sockpuppets are normally noted as sockpuppets in a subsequent comment.

I mention this because I would strongly prefer being informed my post is wrong rather than having it stricken on my behalf.

As a counterpoint, I have collapsed other comments (usually along with my own) on numerous past occasions. But I think this is a bit different. And hypocritically, I unstrikethroughed part of your comment when I was fixing the RfD.

Anyway, I've fixed the RfD discussion. As you noted, it consists of:

• Homosexual lifestyle currently redirects to LGBT culture – but it ought to redirect to Homosexual agenda
• Gay lifestyle currently redirects to LGBT culture – but it ought to redirect to Homosexual agenda

Also, nested <small>...</small> should be avoided for accessibility. e^πi (talk | contribs) 00:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i: Thanks for the fixed Rfd. Aware of TPO, and collapse. I judged that strikethrough here was best, because I did not want to mislead willing volunteers reading the post on this project page, and going to the Rfd to comment in good faith while the Rfd was still unfixed. I note that TPO (as you quoted) only recommends against striking when a change in meaning is involved, afaict; not the case here. TPO also says, Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. In this case, the advantage I saw in strikeout was that the original meaning is still there in its entirety, and can be read by anyone; but the strikeout would probably stop anyone from wasting their time at a defective Rfd; that seemed like a win-win to me. Perhaps notifying the originator might have been better, except that they've recently intervened twice on my behalf at my request, and it didn't seem politic to ask them to do so a third time. Sometimes the best choice isn't an obvious one, even if you think you know all the related policies and recommendations. I've removed the strikeout, but that isn't ideal either, since the notice now contains the original, erroneous information copied in good faith from my erroneous information at the Rfd. I hereby waive my TPO if you want to change it back to strikeout, collapse, or something else; but it really shouldn't remain as it is now, and I don't think the spirit of TPO forbids a correction of that nature. I will go ahead and fix it in the next day or two, unless you register an objection. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I overstated my case against strikethrough; I've edited it. There is one thing I do think is important: pinging the original poster if you edit their post. Even if you think it would bother them, a single ping isn't that much of a distraction.

You're correct that no meaning was changed, except in the most literal mechanistic way. The original intention was to inform about an ongoing RfD, and the strikethrough was done to clarify that the RfD was slightly different than presented.

I've re-added the strikethrough to Thryduulf's post; they can remove it if they want. e^πi (talk | contribs) 10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your reply, and latest edits. Ping minimal effect noted, and absorbed. Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group May 2019

The next Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group live, online meetup will be on May 13. The working agenda is here, and all are welcome. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We revised the time for the meeting to be one hour later at 2:00pm EDT / 8:00pm CEST. Hope this means even more can join it now on May 13. Here is a link to the agenda and Zoom information. All are welcome. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback needed at 'Homosexual lifestyle' Rfd

Your feedback is requested: Homosexual lifestyle, which currently redirects to LGBT culture, has been nominated at Rfd. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Homosexual lifestyle. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Targetable resources needed for 'gender marker'

An IP user recently made an edit to the Zoey Tur article which modified the statement she applied to a court to change her name and gender from male to female to instead read (emphasis mine) she applied to a court to change her name and gender marker from male to female. As the edit summary for the change quite correctly noted, the courts cannot change a person's gender, only the legal documentation of their gender.

I accepted that edit, naturally, but also left a null-edit comment in the history explaining that I felt like "gender marker" should be wikilinked somewhere, as it's a term that's likely unfamiliar to many readers. However, some quick searching turned up nothing that seemed immediately useful, to my surprise, and led me to conclude that Wikipedia currently lacks any resources that focus specifically on the term. There is no gender marker article, nor even a redirect to the relevant section of a different article. (Possibly because no such relevant section exists, per se — I certainly failed to find one.

So, I'll put it to the WikiProject: Does Wikipedia currently have any content that might serve as a useful target for a gender marker redirect, so that the term can be wikilinked in articles where its use may not be immediately clear to some readers? If not, is that something that others agree would be useful to the Wikipedia audience, and is there anyone here who would be able/willing to create such a resource? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Please include a {{ping|FeRDNYC}} if you respond here, so that I'll be notified of the reply — it could take weeks or months (literally) for me to notice, otherwise. Much obliged. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Although the edit summary might be narrowly correct, I don't think it's helpful; everybody understands what she applied to a court to change her name and gender means. If you think that's not enough, then change it to she applied to a court to change her name and legal gender on her passport, or whatever it was she applied to change. I also looked around, and agree that there's no reasonable article that could be the target of "gender marker", but why should there be? This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; there's no article for "organ donor marker", which is a field on my driver's license, either. And you can't add such an article here (although you could add a redirect, if you could find a target) becuase the topic is not notable. On the other hand, Wiktionary is a dictionary, so in theory, you could add it there, and link to it from Wikipedia articles. But the easiest method, it seems to me, is just to avoid the problematic expression that people might not know, and recast it to something they will: legal gender, gender on her birth certificate, or some such. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Appreciate you taking the time to respond, though I have to admit I'm surprised by some of what you wrote.

everybody understands what she applied to a court to change her name and gender means.

I would disagree with that pretty strongly. I don't think it's true at all, not in the most general sense. (AKA the audience Wikipedia articles should be written for.) Within the context of this WikiProject, or among people who typically write about and discuss topics of LGBTQ rights and gender identity... sure, we'd all implicitly understand the realities behind that statement, probably. But that's why we should also understand the importance of using accurate language when discussing these topics. Particularly when presenting them to the general public, as many readers may not possess any of the same background knowledge or context we can take for granted.

When a person with minimal background on trans/gender identity issues reads she applied to a court to change her name and gender, do they understand what that "really" means? Or does it reinforce negative stereotypes, like the idea that changing one's gender is something frivolous that can be done on a whim, as easy as going before a judge or submitting a new form? That sort of dismissive attitude towards the transgender community and its struggles continues to negatively impact the community even today, and we should do everything possible to ensure we're not accidentally reinforcing it through imprecise language.

If you think that's not enough, then change it to she applied to a court to change her name and legal gender on her passport, or whatever it was she applied to change.

I'm confused, are you arguing against using the phrase "gender marker" at all? That would be going in completely the wrong direction, IMHO — the term is correct and useful, as far as I'm concerned we should strive to use it more. But since it's terminology that may be unfamiliar to some people, I'm just looking to give readers the option to explore the term further, so they can familiarize themselves with its meaning and understand why it's important in the context of transgender legal rights and representation. (By comparison, take as an extreme example cisgender. That's a word that often provokes very negative reactions from people who are unfamiliar with it, when it gets dropped into something they're reading without explanation.)

And you can't add such an article here (although you could add a redirect, if you could find a target) becuase the topic is not notable.

How do you figure? 200,000 Google hits for the phrase "gender marker"; over 2800 hits in just the page title.

• Macmillan Dictionary has a definition (though it's from their "crowdsourced Open Dictionary" and as poor as you'd expect)
• A piece published by Vice a few months ago is titled "Gender Marker X: One Person's Journey Beyond M or F"
• The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project both have help pages specifically covering the process for changing one's gender marker on a NYC birth certificate (results no doubt targeted by my current location)
• The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco and the Transgender Law Center are co-organizing a Name and Gender Marker Clinic next month
• And finally, there are pages with resources on gender marker changes (and related issues) on the websites of Northeastern, UT Austin, and UArizona.

That's just in the first couple of pages of (title-match) results. The topic's notability within the context of transgender rights seems clear. Given those results, I actually feel a case could even be made for general notability. But I'm not making that case. I'm actually not in any way suggesting that Wikipedia needs an article on "gender marker", though. But I think it's clear that issues surrounding gender marker changes in identity documents are hugely important to the transgender community. The notability of transgender rights and legal representation in general goes without saying, obviously. So I do think there should be a redirect on the term "gender marker" as it pertains to transgender legal rights, pointing to some appropriate article section. It's the apparent lack of any such section, currently, that surprised me.

The term gender marker is used extensively throughout Transgender rights in the United States#Identity documents, for instance... but that article never defines or explains the term either, it's just presumed to be understood. So, I think it's similarly in need of, at the very least, the same wikilink to something providing background on gender marker (in the context of LGBTQ rights, not simply its definition as a field on identity documents). Or perhaps even a bit more than that. There's a subsection there titled "Name change" that presents a good high-level overview of the issues faced by members of the transgender community when seeking legal name changes, but no corresponding subsection on the issue of gender marker changes in official documentation. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that a better term for this would be "legal gender". The literal letter on your ID is generally not the only thing that changes when you legally change your gender. Since there aren't a lot of other effects of your legal gender any more, it is sometimes easy to miss, but it was important for marriages back before same-sex marriage was legal across the US.

I wouldn't mind setting up a redirect at gender marker, though. LokiTheLiar (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LokiTheLiar and FeRDNYC:, well, maybe you're right and people wouldn't understand it (maybe I've been hanging out at gender articles too long, lol) but it doesn't really affect my point, because just changing it to another term would solve the problem, without having to break your head about where to point the redirect.

I'm confused, are you arguing against using the phrase "gender marker" at all?

And yes, I am arguing against using "gender marker", but not in any kind of policy-based way, there's nothing wrong with the term per se. It's just that in a desire to be reader-friendly and write articles that are clear, it's better to leave it out, just because I think most people will be more confused by "gender marker" than they will by "changing their legal gender". What we're trying to do here is convey meaning to the user, not force the user of the term "gender marker" into the article, right?

Loki, I really looked all over for a target, and it's not easy. The closest I could come, was, either Transgender#Law, or... [tried to find the other one, and now I can't; will get back to you if/when I do] but neither of them are very close to the mark (ahem!) and neither mention gender marker, which would make the redirect mystifying. Plus, there's a much bigger problem with either of those two, namely, everybody has a gender marker on their id, and you *really* can't point a redirect to a Transgender-related article, as that would be inappropriate 98% of the time. That's the only reason I didn't create the redirect myself. So, I'd ask you to hold off creating the redirect, until we can discuss where there's an appropriate target for it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not international, but have you considered Transgender rights in the United States#Identity documents? Alternatively, I wouldn't be opposed to creating an article legal gender and having a treatment of the topic in general on that page, which gender marker can then redirect to pretty obviously. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::@FeRDNYC: This is not the right place to have a Notability discussion, but in brief, Google hit count ≠ notability. I think that if there's a notable related article there, it's likely more about "changing legal gender" or some such, rather than just "gender marker" which, imho, would almost certainly end up getting merged into an existing article. But if you think it's notable as a stand-alone article, go ahead and add an article for the term and see what the consensus is; maybe it will be accepted. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wanted to create legal gender, my guess is it would be notable, and maybe stick, or maybe get merged. But either way, it's worth a treatment. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I did consider it, but as you noted, it's not international. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Project developing wiki content of LGBT+ refugees

I am cross-posting here to share notice of a project to develop Wikidata information about LGBT+ refugees. Continue the discussion at Wikidata or French language Wikipedia.

• d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_LGBT#Projet:Ecrire_pour_les_droits/Marseille/bienvenue
• fr:Projet:Ecrire pour les droits/Marseille/bienvenue/Accueil

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Desmond Napoles

Talk:Desmond_Napoles#WP:STAGENAME_and_Title_of_article. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback sought for merger discussion at Adrienne Rich

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Adrienne Rich#Merge discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Drop the T and Get the L Out

Both these articles are about petitions or campaigns against LGBT+ community support of transgender people, and both are up for deletion on notability grounds:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop the T
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get the L Out

--Fæ (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and homosexuality

There is an effort underway to bring Catholic Church and homosexuality up to Good Article status. You are invited to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Lesbian erasure

Hoping to encourage someone to create an article or a section about this topic. For further details on the current situation, please see Talk:Lesbian erasure#Redirect target. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Uncommon Ground Media on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Uncommon Ground Media's (uncommongroundmedia.com) coverage of Get the L Out on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § UncommonGroundMedia. — Newslinger talk 08:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Why issue notices of this? There were around 20 sources on that article, this was hardly an important one in anyone's book, and as far as I'm aware uncommongroundmedia.com has only ever been used once on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Binyavanga Wainaina

I was sorry to hear that this Kenyan author passed away. His page was nominated for the "recent deaths" section on the front page, so I've been trying to make improvements as I can. I welcome your edits: Binyavanga Wainaina. = paul2520 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Transgender

Portal:Transgender, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Transgender during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month, June 2019: Venus D-Lite

	WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's Collaboration of the Month for June 2019: Venus D-Lite

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help?

Is anyone willing to take a look at an article I am working on?[6] about a trans woman from Chile. It is especially difficult because 1) all the sources have to be translated, thus words that might be acceptable in Spanish, might not be culturally accepted in English. (I avoided clearly derogatory terms in use at the time, but am not really sure on some of the others.); 2) the period of time is in the early years of defining gender and sexuality, so terms have significantly changed; and 3) I felt that I needed to describe the legal situation at the time to give context. (Not sure whether there is too much off-topic discussion and should be added to the country specific article or whether it is on-balance to give a frame of reference to this article). Any help you can give would be appreciated before I take it to mainspace. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have responded to this request at its Talk page. Any further conversation should take place there. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I made a few minor tweaks for clarity. Great article that seems almost ready to go SusunW. Would be great for a couple pictures if possible. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about Jemima Wilkinson

Hello, a discussion is taking place at Talk:Jemima Wilkinson#Pronouns. As the article has < 30 watchers, I am notifying this and other wikiprojects which may have an interest. -sche (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Equality Act discussion could use input

A discussion here, on Talk:Equality Act (United States) regarding weight, source quality and NPOV could use broader input, since the discussion has all of two participants and the associated back-and-forth editing has, like, four. I am notifying this wikiproject and the Law wikiproject. -sche (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Asexuality part of this WikiProject?

Asexuality is part of the LGBT+ umbrella. The article LGBT mentions asexuality being a part of it. List of LGBT-related slurs includes stuff on asexuality, as does LGBT symbols. {{LGBT}} links to Asexuality, as does {{LGBT sidebar}} and Portal:LGBT. Asexuality was even edited as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2018. Yet none of the pure asexuality articles (by which I mean articles whose subject is just about asexuality) are tagged as part of this WikiProject. Is there a reason for this and should it be changed? Adam9007 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm new to the project, but I agree asexuality seems like it falls under the purview of this project. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Same as Wanda: I'm new here, but it seems obvious asexuality ought to be included. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, unless anyone has any objections I shall be putting the tag on their talk pages soon... Adam9007 (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No objections over here. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Done (I think); project tags added, sidebar added, navbox added. The articles I'm referring to are Asexuality, Gray asexuality, and Discrimination against asexual people. The former two seemed to already have a suitable navbox, so I'm not sure if we should have the LGBT one too... Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Now all we've got to do is await the 'asexuals aren't lgbt' edit wars that will undoubtedly ensue... Adam9007 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree Asexuality articles/topics are within this Wikiproject's area of interest, and would point out that this can be true regardless of whether asexuals, as people, are considered part of the LGBT community: compare how the topic of / article on the Men's rights movement is tagged as of interest to the Feminism Wikiproject. -sche (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Now all we've got to do is await the 'asexuals aren't lgbt' edit wars that will undoubtedly ensue And there's one going on right now at List of LGBT-related slurs. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened sooner.Adam9007 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2019

Wiki Loves Pride 2019 runs during the month of June. Be sure to add any new or improved LGBT-related articles to the results page.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Formal equality

Please discuss at Talk:Gender_equality#Is_formal_equality_the_same_term_or_should_it_have_its_own_article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)