Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Presentation of User templates

I've been thinking about possible presentations of Gender related User templates that might go on to personal user pages.

At present there are several templates that roughly repeat the same simply stated content

♂

This contributor to Wikipedia is male.

named, in this instance, Template:User male.

At a distant extreme there's also:

This user is male, straight, and has no problem wearing pink.

named Template:User:Andros 1337/Male straight pink

I have just created a rewrite as:

This user is male both by a random ~2% input of y chromosomes and, with more relevance, by his identity.

named Template:User Male Xy.

Yes, I'm a bit of a science geek but thought to mention all this in in case anyone might want to take a similar train of thought in other directions. I think I'm happy with this template but perhaps try my talk page if you have suggestions. TY Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The more, the merrier. If people don't understand it, they can try to learn. I'm using pansexual user box right now when I mean "Transcending gender stereotypes"(including sexual orientation) and can't think of how to phrase that one. Or did I miss an existing one?

Another one I've been thinking about is used by increasing numbers of lesbian/bi/feminist women: woman-born woman or womyn-born womyn, so how about this?

WOMYN-BORN WOMYN

Must work on the article which definitely gives it a negative spin. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would consider "Woman-Born-Woman" (regardless of spelling) to be hurtful to trans women. Funcrunch (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The term is not used as an attack, direct or indirect. It just is some womyn/women's way of describing themselves to explain their experiences since they heard the first phrase used to describe them or the first tone of voice used in reference to them, and from thence on through their lives. I don't have a problem with "transwoman" myself. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the term is hurtful to many trans women, whether the use of the term is intended as an attack or not. Many trans women have been told that they are not "real" women because they were not designated female at birth. The term has been used by women who were designated female at birth to separate themselves from trans women, claiming that the latter should not have access to the same spaces as "born" women. Funcrunch (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Some women may use it in a hurtful way, but that doesn't mean you remove the privilege of using it from all women who want to use it. Right now there are more serious problems here: we can't even get Wikipedia to agree that "cunt" is hurtful to women of any kind. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I say anything about preventing people from using this template? No. I said the term was hurtful to many trans women, regardless of the intent of the person using it. I stand by that statement. Funcrunch (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the generalized "you" meaning whoever might remove it if someone listed it at User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality#Gender_identity. But per my new suggestion below, I like ones that don't emphasize any sex or gender better anyway, which that one obviously does. Problem solved! :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would urge caution. For many years I have been concerned about userboxes with personal information as few Wikimedians realize how easy these are to mine for data, for example producing lists of people with these declared characteristics, nor are most contributors aware that once they include this information it is unlikely to ever be fully removable if they change their minds. As an alternative I would much rather see folks join wikiprojects or user groups to show their interest and support of the topic without necessarily defining themselves indefinitely by these characteristics. --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely more for those of us who are more "out there" in whatever we're into :-) (Though if I'd known better in 2006 I would have used an anonymous handle!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I try to transcend sexual and gender stereotypes.

Now this one might be what I want to say. Getting fed up with men who freak out cause I'm just too "manly" in personality and intellect and don't stay in my place, apologizing for every edit I dare to make. I wonder if they'd freak out more or less if I was a lesbian instead of a bisexual whose lived with a transgender person for 18 years. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Tweaked today and added to user page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender

I waited before alerting this WikiProject to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender because I wanted to see what non-WP:LGBT editors would state first. However, this WP:AfD is going slow, and one member of this project -- Roscelese -- has weighed in on it. So here I am. I had waited because I couldn't think of another WikiProject to alert to balance out opinions. Well, I did think of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but that WikiProject is far too inactive to typically be useful, and being agender is far more of a gender matter than a sexual matter. I will go ahead and alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology to the discussion, though they are not very active either. And by "balance things out," I mean "opinions from those who are likely to give a different perspective." I know that WikiProjects, including WP:LGBT, have their biases. Some editors, including some members of WP:LGBT or LGBT editors in general, will vote on a WP:AfD or WP:Merge matter based more so on their passions than on Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines. I think this is even more so the case for LGBT editors, given the biases that LGBT people go through and the lack of knowledge of LGBT matters among the general public. An example is Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal. So I ask any of you weighing in on this matter to weigh in with Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines in mind, the ones that I mentioned in the AfD. I appreciate that Roscelese has done so. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Article titles in the format "LGBT (topics) and ..."

Someone remarked that the policy for using "and" in article titles (WP:AT#Titles containing "and") might be a problem for several LGBT-related articles that use "and" in the article title, and set up a discussion on this at Talk:LGBT and religion topics#Article titles - centralized discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Murray Bartlett

The info about the person's sexuality has been removed and then re-inserted. I wonder if such info abides to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How to improve LGBT Rights in the US article?

Since this article is rated C-class by all WikiProjects pages it's part of, I thought it would be good to start a discussion about what the best way to improve it would be. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Project

If anybody's looking for a project to take on for a day or two, I've got a doozy of a suggestion for you.

This week, a blogger from the UK named Tony Scupham-Bilton released a list of the 204 LGBT Olympians who are known to have come out to date (as well as 14 more who were alternates and/or Paralympians, for a total of 218 athletes.) Our comparable Category:LGBT Olympians, however, has only 159 people in it — meaning we're short 45 people (or 59 if we want to include the alternates and Paralympians in that category as well.)

So the project would be to identify which 45-59 people are missing from the category, and find a source (his own document wouldn't be enough of a source in and of itself, but other reliable sources should exist) which would enable them to be added. Some of them might actually not have Wikipedia articles at all yet, admittedly — in which case you would certainly have the option of tracking down sources to start one if you wished, but at the very least they should be added to a resource list for future article topics.

Any takers? Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I just went through A-D, and found a couple of people who were already described and sourced in their articles as LGBT, and simply hadn't been added to the LGBT Olympians category yet — so the count is now at 162 in the category, to 42/56 missing. However, in that batch the following people need references and/or don't actually have an article at all: Anja Andersen, Geert Blanchart, Raelene Boyle, Luc Bradet, Sherri Cassuto, Jhonmar Castillo, Robert Costello, Irene de Kok. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If anybody wants to take this on, a couple of notes: Jhonmar Castillo needs to be held off on, as there appears to be a factual dispute between contemporary coverage stating that he competed as a diver in Seoul in 1988 and his complete absence from any records of who was actually competing there. And for Geert Blanchart, I've found at least one reference (in Dutch and mostly behind a paywall, so I couldn't really read it beyond Google Translating the headline) which appears to suggest that he now considers himself ex-gay. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Raika Ferraz

Hi there - this old AfC submission seems to have a lot of references. Is this a notable topic that should become an article? If so, the citations need placing, and the info needs updating. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

De-disambiguation needed for Anti-LGBT

Anti-LGBT, currently tagged as a disambiguation page, is desperately in need of de-disambiguation, per WP:DABCONCEPT. This is not an ambiguous term like Mercury, which can refer at any time to a planet, an element, a god, a car, or a record label; or Phoenix, which can refer at any time to a city, a mythical bird, or any number of songs, newspapers, or other topics. The clear primary topic of the term "Anti-LGBT" is the broad spectrum of views and actions proceeding from them that are negative towards members of the LGBT community. Articles conveying this type of broad spectrum include things like Anti-Polish sentiment and Anti-Catholicism; these may be good models for turning Anti-LGBT into a proper article where readers can find an informative summary of information about the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The discussion is specifically at Talk:Anti-LGBT#Disambiguation page or not?. A WP:Permalink to it is here. I have disagreed with BD2412 that an Anti-LGBT article is needed; this is because Wikipedia already has more than one anti-LGBT article, primarily the Homophobia article (which covers anti-feelings toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; basically, most of those who are non-heterosexual). In my opinion, the Anti-LGBT page should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to an existing article; my top redirect choice for it is the Homophobia article, per what I've stated in this paragraph about it. More opinions are needed on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the talk page discussion, this material has now been merged into Outline of LGBT topics; however, that page still requires much work. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rockway Institute Page duplicates its website

KevinInMfrg (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Just heard of the Rockway Institute today in a story on National Public Radio. Wondering what it is, I read their web page. Obviously their home page is self-promoting, so while useful I sought something further. Checking Wikipedia I find a word-for-word copy of the website which should by definition be regarded as a weak article. It needs to be fleshed out more with verifiable content.

Thanks and welcome, KDTravis! This is an interesting one, because the Wiki page has looked about like that since 2009, and the page to which you refer, here, is copyright 2012. They might have actually copied from Wikipedia, or both pages could be copied from an earlier source. I am thinking the latter, and either way that page definitely needs a rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rates comparison issue at Suicide among LGBT youth article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Suicide among LGBT youth#Hate Speach - masquerading as 'psychology' & 'Balance'. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

I am not sure if we should add a WP LGBT Studies tag to his talkpage and add referenced info about his assistant's suggestion (in court, so in a serous context) that he is gay. I have a hard time believing it is true because he was with his wife at a benefit for the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica last November (there is a picture in the Dec 5 issue of The Beverly Hills Courier), but perhaps it would be encyclopedic to add that he may be gay, as long as it is referenced, and add the WP tag?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? The WP tag would not mean he is gay btw; Madonna has a WP LGBT Studies tag and is not gay; it would just mean that he is relevant to our WP.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hearsay from the assistant is not nearly a good enough source to anything about his orientation to the article. If there's nothing in the article, there's no need for the banner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we would add referenced info about it. If she lied in a lawsuit, would she not be committing perjury?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really our role to take a position on how credible the allegations are or aren't — they don't sound particularly credible to me, but I'm not a judge in a court of law. Some people here (I won't be one of them) might want to privately watchlist his article to keep an eye on any potential issues that may arise, but for the moment the mere existence of allegations that he's gay are not enough to make him a matter of interest to this WikiProject at this time or to justify adding the allegations to the article. If he ever comes out as gay in his own words, then he'll obviously become of interest to this WikiProject, but at this time it's not appropriate content in a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean, could the assistant not get arrested for perjury if it were not true? It's not like she told a journalist; she told the court apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether someone could get arrested for a statement does not raise it to the level of significance for even inclusion in the article, much less categorization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would she risk getting arrested?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can't be arrested for expressing a mere opinion, no matter how poorly founded the opinion is. There is no risk, and consequently no legal weight to expressing such an opinion. bd2412 T 17:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess we don't know if she opined or said she was sure when she was in court. If she said she was sure and it's not true, that would be perjury, which is a crime, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen a person testify under penalty of perjury that they were absolutely sure that some other person was an alien from another planet, and not face any charges. Even expressing sureness as to an opinion is still expressing an opinion. It would be perjury if she falsely testified that she witnessed someone engaging in specific activities, but no amount of sureness makes an expression of an opinion perjury. bd2412 T 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange. Back to the main issue: are you guys opposed to adding the tag because you are against outing, or because you think he would be a bad gay icon because of his racially insensitive remarks?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not introduce false dichotomies into the conversation. It is a form of trolling, and a sign of a lack of serious interest in discussing the issue. Also, I have not expressed an opinion on adding any tag to this article, so please avoid making false representations about me. bd2412 T 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, please don't accuse me of whatever. I am just trying to understand why you don't think the tag should be added. I think it should be. I have suggested two reasons why people might not want the tag to be added, which I don't regard as valid, though that is open to debate. We have to be able to talk here and not be accused of "trolling." Otherwise there is no point in collaborative WPs. Also, when I say "you," it's a general you for the WP editors, otherwise I would be writing on your talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A false dichotomy, by definition, is providing two alternatives in a way that suggests that these are the only two possibilities. Can you think of a third reason, within the scope of constructing a useful encyclopedia, why such a tag may be unwarranted? bd2412 T 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't think of one when I wrote my last comment, no, especially as the WP tag does not mean he is gay. It just means the subject is relevant to our WP.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that unless and until he does someday come out as gay, he's not relevant to our WikiProject. The mere existence of unconfirmed allegations about his sexuality does not make him relevant to us in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oldest gay bar in NYC?

Gay bar#Modern era says that "Julius is New York City's oldest continuously operating gay bar and is possibly the oldest continuously operating gay bar in the world". But I've found a couple of sources that attribute that distinction to the Candlestick lounge. I've just quoted them in a new talk section, Talk:Gay bar#Oldest in NYC?. I do not feel qualified to adjudicate this conflict, so I'm dropping it at your doorstep. ;-)

To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Requested move 10 December 2014

You are invited to a move request. Improve consensus by posting your comments there. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas(ine) Hall

Hi, folks. Here's an interesting draft article that was never submitted at AfC and now is about to be deleted as stale. If anyone thinks it's a notable topic that should be in the encyclopedia, just make any edit to prevent it from disappearing. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just made a small ton of edits, mostly to the form and placement of references but with a bit of copyediting of the text where necessary. It still needs ref editing: most paragraphs have a footnote on almost every sentence, and generally to the same reference for each paragraph. I don't remember how best to fix that, and I've no more time for this tonight. To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just submit it for review and make any necessary alterations in the normal course of things? The subject is clearly notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have some issues with the "significance" section in particular — specifically, that section reads very much more like an essay about the history of gender identity theory in general than like appropriately encyclopedic content about Hall as an individual. I agree that sufficient notability is probably there in principle, but some modifications are still needed — but Roscelese is right that this should probably go forward for review so that the remaining issues can be addressed. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I made fairly extensive edits on Jan 14, and I questioned that graf in a note in the text. I've just submitted the entry for review. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And it was accepted in a few hours -- though I think the title isn't proper style at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh, just suggested (but not nominated) this draft as DYK. I really thought it was a hoax at first since the topic is so distinctive and contrary to usual assumptions about Colonial Virginia, but at least the major details are supported by academic works. I brought it to DYK's attention here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Interesting_article_on_an_early_Trans_person_in_colonial_Jamestowne_.28possible_DYK_for_LGBT_history.29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to those who pitched in to make this less essay-like. The title may not be one that's likely to be found by someone searching for information about this person; maybe a redirect "Thomasine Hall" is in order, and an entry in the Thomas Hall disambiguation page would help, too.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of help requested

Dear all,

I've created the articles for Cucumber, Banana, and Tofu, and I'm intending to get all three articles to DYK status, but I'm 200 bytes short on Tofu and I'm drawing blanks. Could I please have some help pushing it over the line? :) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexophobia article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexophobia. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner

Given recent rumors and media attention, this article could use some extra eyes. Currently nothing of the rumors has been added to the article per WP:IDENTITY, but it's sure to be edited more frequently because of the publicity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This interview should provide needed RS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bruce-jenner-to-discuss-transition-in-diane-sawyer-interview "Bruce Jenner to discuss transition in Diane Sawyer interview" TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jameson Currier

Hello again... here's an abandoned draft about writer whose subject matter seems to fall under the interests of this project. I added a couple of sources, but it needs some work before being accepted, so any help in improving it will be appreciated. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's been a nominee for the Gaylactic Spectrum Award and the Lambda Literary Award, so he certainly qualifies for a Wikipedia article in principle. I'll see what I can do to help out with sourcing issues, but since he's American and the only really comprehensive database access I have is to Canadian newspapers, I can't necessarily promise a ton. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: I was able to improve the sourcing sufficiently that I've moved the page into articlespace at Jameson Currier. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ((U|Bearcat}}. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with Simple English Wikipedia

Could some people help expand the following articles on the Simple English Wikipedia?

You don't have to get it perfect, just expand it to the point where it is no longer a stub. Five or ten minutes per article should be enough. 67.239.119.192 (talk)

It shouldn't take 5-10 minutes per article. SimpleWP focuses on written articles that can be easily readable to people who speak English as a second language, those who have disabilities and are working to enhance their writing and speaking skills, and people learning English. Furthermore, the articles should read at an eighth grade level per their guidelines. Taking just 5-10 minutes won't cut it, the articles would then be tagged as too "complex" for readers interested in LGBT articles on their Wikipedia. Best, .jona ^talk 15:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with Tiq Milan article

Hi there, I recently created a Wiki article for Tiq Milan, a trans activist and writer. The article got proposed for deletion and I believe it's because trans folks are underrepresented and not understood as what their contributions notable. Can you please review the article and assist? I really don't want it to be deleted. Thank you! Srdemuro (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What you've failed to do is to reference the article to reliable sources (i.e. media coverage about him); nearly all of the references in the entire article are to primary sources. A person does not, for example, get over our inclusion rules on the basis of his own self-penned biography on the website of an organization he's directly involved with, or by being the bylined author of the article that you're citing as support — he gets over it by being the subject of coverage in sources that are independent of him. But out of the 54 references you've cited, I can count the acceptable sources (the ones that count a whit toward making him notable enough for an encyclopedia article) on the fingers of one hand. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Rhadamanthus

I was just editing this article about a son of Zeus in Greek mythology, and I noticed the banner of this project on the talk page. I'm puzzled, because I don't see what connection Rhadamanthus has with LGBT studies. If there is some connection, then perhaps it should be mentioned in the article? I would certainly be interested.

Does anyone know why that banner is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much stock to put in this, and it's not actually covered in either article at present, but this source, by author Andrew Calimach, certainly makes the claim that there are some stories within the corpus of Rhadamanthus mythology in which he was at least briefly a same-sex lover of Talos. So the project tag was likely added on that basis without anybody actually adding any content to the article about it, or it got added to the article and then excised by somebody else — I haven't investigated the edit history carefully enough to rule that out, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about Greek mythology to evaluate the credibility of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editing going on at the Sissy article

Potential disruptive editing at Looking (and potentially other pages).

A relatively new editor has being going through some articles (Murray Bartlett, Looking) and removing statements about the individual or content being "gay", because they claim it makes things "more equal" since "you wouldn't say he was openly heterosexual" or "you wouldn't say a show is about three straight friends" and shows and people shouldn't be labeled because of sexuality. I've attempted to engage with the editor on the Talk:Looking page to explain that the information is relevant to its coverage and content and removing it violates WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO. It looks like they gave up with Murray Bartlett, since that issue was back in November and hasn't been changed, but the editor has reverted the changes on Looking a few times. (Note: Not all of the editor's changes in service of that opinion have been unacceptable.) Any assistance reaching out to them, or helping to handle the situation if it becomes an edit war would be appreciated.Luminum (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Queer heterosexuality article

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should add importance scale

Now, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment doesn't have importance scale. In my opinion, we need a importance scale on LGBT project.

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. The article is about one of the core legal topics. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance LGBT articles
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. The article is about the most well-known or historically significant aspects of the LGBT. Adds articles to Category:High-importance LGBT articles.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. The article is about a topic within the legal field that may or may not be commonly known outside the profession. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance LGBT articles.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. The article is about a topic that is highly specialised within the field of legal studies and is not generally common knowledge to lay people. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance LGBT articles.
None	None	This article has yet to be rated. Adds articles to Category:Unknown-importance LGBT articles.

In this scaling, every (former) core topics will be ranked in top-class. --CDjanegirl (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's with all the references to the legal profession? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, I think CDjanegirl may have hastily copied that table from WikiProject Law.

—Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure, for the record, that we have nearly enough active participants here to actually implement and maintain this, or to actually do much of anything with it. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use a scale like this when deciding what entries to work on? I doubt it. I think scales exist for people who love to categorize. Impact on WP close to nil. Just sayin. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

At least on the wikiprojects that I've worked on, I've literally never seen anything substantive done with the importance-ranking system (except for the occasional debate or argument about what rank should be given to a particular topic, and even then with no particularly profound impact on much of anything after that argument was over.) I can't speak for every wikiproject — maybe some project I'm not involved in has found a real, productive use for the system — but I can't honestly claim that I've ever seen a single thing done with the system that would lift it out of "well, I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time" territory. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding an importance scale isn't too difficult with the set-up of project templates these days, and I myself introduced it one for WikiProject Eurovision. I've sometimes found importance scales to be a "nice to have" as one see if the project is taking care of core articles, though quite often I found that they were more trouble than they were worth with people frequently arguing over what level of importance a particular article should have. CT Cooper · talk 12:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

I wanted to raise an issue for discussion pertaining to Taylor Mac, a musical theatre performer about whom a new article was created ten days ago. Specifically, this person has created and uses their own neologism of a gender pronoun for themself, "judy" — and our article proceeds to simply go ahead and use "judy" wherever a gender pronoun is called for.

I want to stress that I'm not uncomfortable with the basic principle of gender-neutral pronouns — I'm completely down with singular-they, for example — but I am uncomfortable with the notion of Wikipedia actively using neologistic pronouns that don't correspond to any recognized standard of English usage, and I'm doubly uncomfortable with doing so when the neologism in question can so easily be mistaken for a person's name. I don't know what the right answer is here: should we simply leave the article as is, with "judy" used as a gender pronoun, or should we find some other way to write the article so that it respects the topic's gender-ambiguity without using a poorly-recognized neologism to convey that?

I can see valid arguments on both sides, so I wanted to check for consensus on this. Any input? Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you on both accounts Bearcat. Arbitrary pronouns should not be used by the encyclopedia. Use singular they or person's name if necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but doesn't MOS:IDENTITY prefer self-designation? "...for terms relating to gender identity [...] Wikipedia favors self-designation"– Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 20:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Neologism, which points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Neologisms and new compounds, is clear why Wikipedia generally discourages neologisms (not just articles about neologisms). And MOS:IDENTITY is about gender pronouns that are actually a part of the English language, not newly made-up ones. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I wouldn't have an article refer to a person by any of the neologisms noted at the Genderqueer article throughout their Wikipedia article; I would simply note their genderqueer identity once (or twice if noting in the lead and lower) in the article with a WP:Reliable source, and use their name and possibly singular they throughout the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

When a person uses a pronoun other than she, he, or they, I believe it would be preferable to use that person's name throughout the article rather than singular they, which some would consider misgendering. This is done on the article on Justin Vivian Bond, who uses the pronoun "v", for example. (I say this as a person who prefers singular they for myself, for what it's worth.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Since singular they can confuse people, I likely wouldn't use it much, if at all, in place of "he" or "she" for a MOS:IDENTITY matter. That's why I tweaked my "20:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" post above by adding "possibly" in front of "singular they." But, singular they, just like "he or she" and s/he, is widely considered gender-neutral language. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So, yeah, just like with the Brandon Teena, Chaz Bono and Chelsea Manning articles, I would go with their names in places where it makes sense to do so and will cause less confusion to our readers. It's easier with those articles, though, since either "he" or "she" can additionally be used in those cases; those aspects help where repeatedly using the name can get tedious and come across as bad writing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would lean toward a singular "they", so that we're staying within English. As one who has worked on the Justin Vivian Bond article, I can tell you that phrasing can get really tortured at times without pronouns, and that there are practical limits to how much we allow people to dictate how they are addressed. Claiming "they" to be gendering does not actually mean "they" is gendering, and if we can refer to the Queen as "she" rather than "Her Majesty",then we have already chosen not to let the subject dictate. We can, of course, cover the fact that the subject prefers an alternative pronoun, particularly when such preference is covered in significant sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Gender stereotypes (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Christina of Sweden

A user at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden does not consider the sourcing adequate. Perhaps users from this project could help. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed?

I am thinking of renaming Homophobia in the Black British community to Homophobia in the Black British and Ethnic minority community to include other groups as there is a info on homophobia amongst British Muslims. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed. I've left a note on the talk page of Homophobia in the Black British community (with a wikilink to this discussion) as I think the conversation would probably be more appropriate there.

Thanks for bringing this up. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 11:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the article should be renamed. Right now, it is about black people in Britain. ~~A black person being Muslim or adhering to some other religion does not mean that the article's title should reflect that.~~ And, per WP:Article title, the title should not have "ethnic" capitalized. Maybe "Black" should also not be capitalized. I will note all of this on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I struck part of my post above because I misread the proposal and an aspect of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, judging by this, maybe I did not misinterpret what was being proposed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia in British ethnic minority communities? Greg Kaye 17:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Harnesses

I'm looking for the right name for the harnesses shown here. I wish to make a subcategory. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fetish harnesses? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably the most popular generic term is chest harness. More complex designs with more rings or straps down to cock-rings are often sold as a "slave harness" or a "body harness", and more likely to be worn by guys wanting to be seen as a sub. Though leather harnesses like this are most known for gay men, keep in mind that there is a heterosexual scene for the same kit, and with a bit of research you could find "glamour" photos showing that the basic designs have been around for nearly half a century. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've made subcat "chest harnesses". Some items do show a strap going down into the nether regions, but I guess they're "chest harnesses deluxe". Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak that looks good but titles such as "Fetish harnesses" or "Harnesses in fetish culture" came to mind. I took a Google widow shopping trip here and mainly found the likes of climbing and safety harnesses where as the harnesses shown have little to do with personal climbing or a personally promoted safety. the related article is Bondage harness. Greg Kaye 17:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Greg. Many thanks for the feedback. I'm out of my depth on this one, so I'll leave it to others to respond. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anna, while I'm glad you've been able to find people to help you with your question, this isn't really the right Wikiproject to ask. WP:Sexology and sexuality would be better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Roscelese. Sorry to have posted in the wrong place. I considered WP:Sexology and sexuality, but then thought this more of a fashion or culture thing. My apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015 submission

I've proposed a submission titled "Wikimedia LGBT+" for Wikimania 2015, proposing a presentation covering the newly formed Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group with plenty material on this WikiProject and other LGBT related activities. Things I'll cover include we're about, what we do, future opportunities, potential problems with time for some input from the audience. If you're interested in attending then please feel free to add your name to the interested attendees list on the submission page. I also welcome feedback here or on the proposal's talk page. CT Cooper · talk 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisions to 'Trans bashing'

I am a student working on the article 'Trans bashing' and I have some revisions that I would like to make to the page. I would like to change the name of the page to 'Transgender violence' and greatly expand it to include policies and attitudes globally, religious views on transgenderism, and differences in attitudes within various communities. Please let me know if any other users have feedback. BSchilling (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@BSchilling: Honestly that sounds like a good idea (might suggest calling it "Violence against transgender people" though so it's not confused with violent transgender people). Note that Violence against transgendered people does redirect to Violence against LGBT people currently. Might need to establish the notability of violence against transgender people, but that should be fairly easy by linking some solid reliable sources that talk about it as a social issue. Another article to consider looking at is List of unlawfully killed transgender people. I think first start a discussion about moving the page on Talk:Trans bashing and see if anyone replies. If there's no objection, move the page. If there is objection, start an WP:RM. You can start expanding on the article while the discussion occurs if it's non-contentious stuff. I'll be happy to help out and clean up formatting and such if you need it (but it looks like you've been here for a bit, which is awesome). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Trans bashing article was likely named Trans bashing for the same reason that the Gay bashing article was titled Gay bashing -- because of WP:Common name and because many people take the term violence to mean physical violence, without any thought to other aspects of violence. In other words, in these contexts, the term bashing is broader to many people. After all, look at the definitions that usually show up when you Google "Violence definition," or simply Google "Violence." So I'm not sure about renaming the article. If you do, make sure that everything you include in it is actually a violence topic or significantly related to violence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I think that the vast majority of people restrict the term violence to physical violence; that's certainly been my experience throughout life, including when reading reliable sources. When someone says, "He became violent.", for example, people don't usually interpret that to mean emotional/psychological violence. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@BSchilling:@EvergreenFir:@Flyer22: It struck me that one route forward might be to request a merge of content of Trans bashing and Gay bashing to Violence against LGBT people. How would that work? Greg Kaye 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, it would work fine if done well. By that, I mean that the article would not need a Gay bashing section, and perhaps not a Trans bashing section. After all, gay bashing, like the lead of the Gay bashing article currently states, "is verbal or physical abuse against a person who is perceived by the aggressor to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer, including persons who are actually heterosexual or of non-specific or unknown sexual orientation." Going by that definition (which is supported by some WP:Reliable sources, if one looks for them), gay bashing includes trans bashing, and the Trans bashing article could therefore be merged into the Gay bashing article. Then again, some people would not want gay bashing and trans bashing to both be under the title of gay, given that people commonly confuse transgender aspects with being gay. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I like your name much better. I was thinking of how to phrase it without making it too long or making the phrasing confusing, but I think you hit it. The reason that I would want to change it to 'violence' rather than 'bashing' is because I'd like to talk a lot more about policies against the violence (not limited to physical) and problem areas/places that tolerate it. I mainly don't want to be limiting, but I understand that the term is contentious, especially with the context of the term 'bashing', so I think I will make initial expansions to the page and continue to pursue the topic of changing the name on the talk page. I will be careful not to be redundant in consideration of similar articles for my initial contribution and I will put more thought/post on talk pages about the possibility of merging. Thank you all so much for being so responsive!

BSchilling (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT History Cornwall

Help? How does one turn a referenced chronological LGBT biography timeline (ie. articles, press, documents etc;)into a Wikipedia entry? I just don't know where to start? There are plenty of entries on Wikimedia commons for Malcolm Lidbury

http://www.lgbthistorycornwall.blogspot.com LGBT Gay equality & HIV/AIDS Campaigner, Artist & Sculptor: Malcolm Lidbury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.240.173 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Also substantial press cutting collection for LGBT History Cornwall https://www.pinterest.com/LGBTCornwall/part-1-cornwall-lgbt-history-archive-malcolm-lidbu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.240.173 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Timelines are usually rewritten on Wikipedia as a prose narrative. One problem with this timeline is that it is a self-published source so it does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. The author of this timeline is not named and the work had no editorial control because it seems to be one person's blog. It links to some newspapers but much of the story is self-published. The parts which are backed by reliable sources can be put into Wikipedia citing those sources. Information only from the timeline cannot, because there is no source to cite. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the press cuttings, if these are looking for a long term home, keep in mind that the LGBT archives as part of LAGNA are now at the Bishopsgate Library.[1] Donations of organized press cuttings would be welcome and would then be available for all researchers. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles

Contrary to the tag at the top of this vast list, it's not been maintained for eight years. Could it please be overwritten or nominated for deletion? Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And this one, six years: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Cleanup --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
And this one, seven years: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Verification --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All now sent to MfD. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Selim E. Woodworth

I need help categorizing Selim E. Woodworth. See the Selim_E._Woodworth#Early_years for the LGBT particulars. Later in life he eventually married (a woman). But retained a distant but loving relationship with his (male) lover of youth. It's my understanding that in this period (early 19th century) people did not identify as "gay vs. non-gay" so the concept of bisexual might be anachronistic and could inappropriately label. There's no content dispute, I just don't know what to do. Any advice or edits appreciated. -- GreenC 03:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...seems tricky because Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century (sometimes used in preference to Category:Pre-19th-century LGBT people‎) is obviously inaccurate on its face, since he lived and died in the 19th century - even though the goal of the category seems to be catching people who lived before concepts of gay and straight solidified, which is the case here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Culture of Saudi Arabia and LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia

An anonymous IP has deleted huge chunks of what appears to be sourced text from these articles. I reverted as vandalism, but the IP has reverted back claiming that I am missing the point. This is not my field of interest or expertise, so I'd appreciate if a knowledgeable editor could have a look at these edits. I don't feel involved (I was only on vandalism patrol using STiki), so if the IP is indeed being a vandal and continues edit-warring, drop me a note and I'll protect the articles. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just blocked the IP for a month for block evasion. From their talk page and contributions list it looks like they have been making similar edits to other LGBT-related articles on Muslim countries. --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karen D. Thompson

Hi, LGBT experts. This old AfC submission was turned down for not having inline citations. It has them now. Although I have gone over it for NPOV, it mainly represents one side of the story. I have submitted it for review. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Opposition to same-sex marriage as to whether or not this category belongs in Category:Discrimination against LGBT people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please check this out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, more eyes on this would be helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Defining a lipstick lesbian/other lesbian topics

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Lipstick lesbian#The term lipstick lesbian also refers to bisexual women, and even to heterosexual women. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Sorbetfordogs (talk · contribs) has been editing WP:Disruptively at the Butch and femme article, and I think that Sorbetfordogs is the editor I've been in dispute with at the Lipstick lesbian article; I state this based on both editors' need to claim that these terms (lipstick lesbian, butch, and femme) are for lesbians only, their need to edit these articles from personal experience rather than a reliance on what WP:Reliable sources state, their need to imply that editors are lesbophobic and/or call editors lesbophobic because the editors are not being as strict with these terms as they are (see here, here and here), their need to WP:Edit war without making their cases on the article talk pages, and their need to capitalize "LESBIAN" and/or other words while WP:Edit warring. Like I mentioned at the Lipstick lesbian article talk page, I am all for going with the primary definition for the WP:Lead sentence; that is how I usually edit Wikipedia articles, but I am not for excluding definitions based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I also noted that "those who dislike that this is an encyclopedia and that we are supposed to follow the rules of this encyclopedia with a prejudice toward WP:Activism should go elsewhere. WP:Activism is something I very much dislike, and I've made it clear on my user page. No WP:IDON'TLIKEIT case will get in the way of me editing Wikipedia how it should be edited." I mean that. I've already contacted two editors that I trust to weigh in on these matters, respectively; those two editors are NinjaRobotPirate (who sometimes edits sexual topics) and VQuakr (see here; he sometimes edits sexual topics, including LGBT topics). And now I'm WP:Pinging Viriditas because he might have ideas about where to go from here on these topics. I also changed the title of this heading by adding "other lesbian topics" since this section now concerns more than the Lipstick lesbian article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Flyer22, I think your position is sound, but doesn't this illustrate a larger dispute within the LGBT community, given the IPs edits? It seems analogous to similar disputes within other subcultures, such as the vegan community (who is or is not a vegan), and the religious community. I wonder if this borders on no true Scotsman territory. It also seems to illustrate the reported bias against bisexuals that I've read about, in the same way that flexitarians might be looked down upon by vegans, for example. I think the broader definition including bisexuals is sound, more so if it is based on sources. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Viriditas, it's common for lesbians and bisexual women to fight over how to apply the term lesbian; I've commented on this/the topic of lesbian identity at the Lesbian talk page. And I noted at the Lipstick lesbian talk page that the Lesbian article does address the topic of identity disputes (both in the lead and elsewhere in the article, especially in this section). I understand how you can see this as similar to the vegetarianism vs. veganism matters, such as this one we were recently involved in. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To state more on the topic, part of the dispute among lesbians and bisexual women concerns the fact that a lot of people (including various researchers) think that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's sexuality; this, for example, leads some heterosexual men to think that they can "turn a lesbian" into a heterosexual woman or at least into a bisexual woman. Some lesbian women argue that even women who identify as lesbian because they have very little sexual attraction to men and/or have no interest in having sex with men are giving lesbians a bad name; they state this because if the women ever do become romantically/sexually interested in a man, it will seem like they were "turned heterosexual" or "turned bisexual." They argue that these women were never lesbian; they were always bisexual. And then there is dispute over whether bisexuality exists. For those who do not know what I mean on these matters, see the following sources: This 1995 Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution source from NYU Press, pages 47-121. This 2009 Sexualities and Identities of Minority Women source from Springer Science & Business Media, pages 30-33. This 2009 Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity source from Cengage Learning, page 303. And this 2010 Lesbian & Bisexual Identities source from Temple University Press, pages 32-55. There are a lot more sources on these topics, including from the most recent years. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender pronouns at the Ruby Rose article

Starting today, as seen here, there has been back and forth on what gender pronouns to use for Ruby Rose; in that WP:Diff link, an IP states that Rose is genderfluid. With this edit, Platypus222 states that "Rose said in interview that she prefers fem[i]nine pronouns." I am aware that Rose is fluid with gender, but this might be similar to the Judith/Jack Halberstam matter, where he has stated that he doesn't mind being referring to by male or female pronouns, or being called Judith, but prefers male pronouns and being called Jack. I'll start a section on this matter at Talk:Ruby Rose. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Need additional opinions on LGBT sororities and fraternities

We're discussing the inclusion criteria for the List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities on the talk page for that article. Currently, the criteria only includes only organizations which currently have wikipedia articles. We're considering whether to change the inclusion criteria to any national organization to bring it in line with other lists of sororities and fraternities. Any and all opinions would be appreciated. Bali88 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Community discussion on harassment reporting

There are many current proposals as part of the 2015 Inspire Campaign related to harassment management. I’ve created a page, Meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting meant to serve as a central space where the various stakeholders in these proposals and other community members can discuss which methods might serve our community best so that we can unify our ideas into collective action. I encourage you to join the conversation and contribute your ideas! OR drohowa (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)