Wikipedia talk:No queerphobia

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

1. Raladic (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I am more than glad to endorse this essay. My compliments to the author on how well it is composed. Obviously, queerphobia/homophobia should be eradicated from Wikipedia, as every other form of discrimination. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Loki (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Skimel (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I endorse the content of Special:Permalink/1221239371 as a Wikipedia namespace essay. Expression of queerphobic beliefs is a form of identity-based hate that prevents some volunteers and would-be volunteers from contributing. The essay gives examples that would constitute personal attacks. Some examples it lists are fringe among medicine or academic disciplines (such as philosophy). Editing with a view incompatible with Wikipedia's position on science and fringe topics can be a 'competence is required' issue. — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
6. ElleAnónime (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I endorse it in its rough shape; like with all things, I think there are particulars to fine-tune to make it maximally clear and useful. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
8. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
9. Endorse as written by this timestamp. I have read the entire essay, and I encourage others who have expressed opinions or sentiments without completely reading the essay to read it too. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
10. I've waited for the rough edges to be shaven off through collaborative editing, but now that they largely have been, and the essay is starting to crystallise a bit more, I'll happily endorse. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Discrimination in any way, shape or form has no place in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. ~Δ _{(delta • t • c)} 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
12. I believe that this is a helpful essay which can assist editors who have good intentions, but who lack detailed familiarity with LGBT topics, to recognise and deal with common forms of disruptive anti-LGBT editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
13. Useful, the ratiocination satisfies quality. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
14. As the original author, it would be surprising if I didn't endorse it. More to the point, its controversy proves its utility: Don't be bigoted to the LGBTQ community on Wikipedia or use Wikipedia as a tool to denigrate us - that is inappropriate and has consequences per Wikipedia's rules should be, for lack of a better phrase, fucking obvious. The immediate uproar accusing an essay about that simple concept going too far shows how sorely it's needed. From my experience, and those of other queer editors I know, there is a long-standing problem with those who denigrate LGBT people through dogwhistles and CPOV-pushing of FRINGE nonsense getting a pass for stopping short of slurs. It's caused many to at least consider leaving the project rather than deal with it. I myself have procrastinated writing this essay almost since I joined Wikipedia, not only to steel myself for the uproar it would cause but because I wondered if the essay is fundamentally untrue and WP:Some Queerphobia would have been a better title in terms of both honesty and satire. For too long, Wikipedia has allowed anti-LGBT views and misinformation and those who promote them to create a toxic environment. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seemed like a good place to start. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

    I have re-considered my endorsement per the second half of the above comment. Please refer to my non-endorsement below - this essay runs the risk of misleading its readers to believe queerphobia isn't tolerated on Wikipedia, when the opposite is the case. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Taking a break from work to clarify: I endorse this essay wholeheartedly in its ideals and pointing out how, per Wikipedia's policies, queerphobia is not tolerated. I cynically (and indeed sarcastically) dis-endorsed it on the basis that, per Wikipedia's practice, it is. I contain multitudes and just hope one day the basic shit in the essay isn't so "controversial". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

15. I endorse the essay with preference for this version of it. Although Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is correct in observing that queerphobia is tolerated, defended, and even celebrated on Wikipedia (by vaster portions than I think some of endorsers might realize), I disagree with the (possibly sarcastic?) conclusion that the essay does more harm than good in its outlining of how Wikipedia says it works and ought to work, as opposed to how it really works. We haven't deleted WP:5P4 despite rampant violations of it yet, and the Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct exists even if it's flagrantly disregarded by rogue projects. Better to have this essay as a standard for Wikipedia to live up to rather than not have it. A WP:Some Queerphobia essay as advice to editors facing queerphobia (warning them that queerphobia is rampant and often unaddressed) could be useful, but I wouldn't want that essay to be a straight-up concession to queerphobia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

    ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Hydrangeans.

Non-Endorsers

1. Wikipedia appears to be rapidly turning into a place with a very long list of people who are not welcome. Could we not just summarize it by saying anyone failing to subscribe to the current doctrines and orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata? FWIW, as long as WP:NOTPUNITIVE remains in force, I will not act against anyone whose beliefs I may disagree with, political or otherwise, unless their actual conduct on the project is disruptive. I for one find the recent trend in these essays deeply lamentable, and contrary to the spirit that I always assumed animated the project. (Still waiting for WP:No Communists.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Habitually oppose any "no <X group that has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia>" essays. Queen of ♡ | speak 07:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
3. While I do disagree with hating people, the line between hate and disagreement is far too blurry here. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
4. I guess I will say the same thing here I said at the MfD: The idea of having a specific WP:NONAZIS fork for sexuality is already dodgy, and of questionable utility (some people have already mentioned this). So maybe this essay is a great idea -- until you read it. The actual words written here are a political screed about how we need to purge editors who believe in "narratives" the author does not like. I've gone a hundred thousand edits under my real name without being asked about my sexual orientation, but sources close to JPxG say that all LGBT editors are not spoken for here. We should not have an essay asserting confidently that everyone who argued against its author in a MoS debate should be ejected summarily from the project. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a political thunderdome -- I am opposed to any outcome that involves any chance of people reading this and thinking that it represents official Wikipedia doctrine. jp×g🗯️ 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I agree with the spirit of what Ad Oreintem said. Personal attacks are already against the rules. The authors seem to be suggesting that, rather than banning people for personal attacks, people should be banned for personal beliefs. I strongly disagree. I guess this essay would be fine on the authors' individual Wikipedia userpages, as an expression of individual belief (like userboxes), but I think it's bizarre and counterproductive for it to be a published essay in this way, unless Wikipedia's attitude about essays is completely laissez-faire, and anything goes. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
6. A lot of what this essay calls "queerphobia" is problematic and can easily come from good faith. Yes, the problematic parts of the list could be removed, but as long as this essay stays up the problematic parts will likely be added back, because nowadays the definition of "queerphobia" has become incredibly subjective. On top of that, the "nutshell" part of the page gives me the impression that people should be banned for their beliefs, not just their edits. Reading through the !votes of endorsers, only 3 out of 8 give any sort of reason arguing why this essay should be endorsed. The other 5 just left their signature to endorse, as if this was a vote, which it's not. I would highly suggest current endorsers to add reasons for their endorsement, and new endorsers to give actual reasons instead of blanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I have often seen that, when online communities start pointing fingers against "evil" groups that must be removed from within them, the real problem is not actual hate but "Reductio ad Hitlerum" arguments. And I'm also aware that in the real world the alleged persecution of "hate" speech is actually used by dictatorships to silence their critics, such as here Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
8. I've been opposing the imposition of political correctness for decades, and have no reason to change my mind now. Orwell and Kafka might be proud of this essay which does a masterful job of declaring any and all language and arguments anybody might seek to use to support and defend positions in opposition to queer theory as "dogwhistles" of "far right" and "fringe" doctrines. In particular, it's quite a useful thing that one of the prime tenets of gender ideology is that there's no such thing as gender ideology; that nips any opposing arguments in the bud! The aim of Newspeak was to ensure that expression of dissident opinions was impossible due to all relevant words being either eliminated or redefined. Modern social-justice crusaders are making great progress at achieving this, particularly in the area of sex and gender. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

   ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Dtobias.

9. Bullet point 7 oF "Queerphobic beliefs" is particularly problematic: "That marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples." Such restrictions are supported by millions worldwide for religious reasons and are still the law of the land in many countries. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
10. As the original author, it would be surprising if I didn't endorse it, but here we are. This essay is hopelessly naive at best and nonsensical drivel that might hurt its readers at worst. It poses a serious risk that readers will take away the mistaken impressions that queerphobia is not tolerated on Wikipedia and that there are consequences to using Wikipedia as a soapbox to complain about LGBT people and our supposed agenda/ideology/etc. The essay should be deleted and redirected to WP:Some queerphobia, which would outline that the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people, otherwise all behavior and arguments are fine if couched in the barest threads of civility. As such, I cannot in good conscience endorse this essay since its central thesis, It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing guidelines to discipline editors for behavior indicative of queerphobia, is hopelessly idealistic and based off A) how Wikipedia says it works and B) how Wikipedia is supposed to work as opposed to C) how it actually works Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

    ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist.

11. Wikipedia is not a place for politics. I feel like WP:NPA and WP:HID covers this. Per Ad Orientem, GreyStorm, and JPxG. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
12. While I would usually find myself supporting something like this in any other public forum, a line from the very first paragraph bothers me. "They disrupt the encyclopedia by promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBT editors." I'm a queer person, living in rural Scotland, and I have to say my pro-LGBT beliefs are the fringe viewpoint here, and it's probably still the same in most of the rest of the world. Wikipedia should always be based on a neutral point of view, whether that introduces queerphobic content or not. If this only applied to conduct on talk pages, for example (which would largely be unnecessary anyway with WP:NPA as noted above), I might be able to get behind it but from my reading it's also an attempt to police article content and promote a pro-LGBT agenda on Wikipedia. I might not like it, but the world is full of reliable sources with an anti-LGBT agenda and they shouldn't be maligned any more than reliable pro-LGBT sources. Also, while I'm gay I don't believe in gay marriage (it's a religious institution to me and should be left alone in favour of civil partnership) so this essay would have me labelled queerphobic. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to endorsements/non-endorsements

To preserve the clarity of the bulleted lists above, threads responding to messages in the above section have been refactored into their own section. Further discussion and arguments should ideally be created down here (with appropriate links and links back). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Dtobias

Moved from Dtobias 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel compelled to respond to this comment since I was thinking a lot about Orwell when I wrote this essay. For example, it's hard to think of a better example than the Two Minutes Hate than those who feel compelled to rant about gender ideology, a perpetually undefined threat that a shadowy cabal are pushing to destabilize the world. Orwell would probably be laughing his ass off about people arguing that criticism of a doublespeak thought terminating cliche created by the Catholic Church to oppose feminism and transgender rights is actually the real Newspeak to silence dissent. The legislators arguing that children must be "protected" from knowing LGBT people exist "gender ideology" and teachers should be allowed to misgender transgender students with impunity are in fact the maligned freedom fighters, as opposed to the transgender people forced to flee the powerful authoritarian gender lobby! [1][2][3] Those in power are weak, those without power are strong and dangerous, "gender ideology" exists and is coming to get you, and Emmanuel Goldstein is the enemy of the state :) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Jewish atheist, I have no interest in promoting the views of the Catholic Church or any other religion. But what else but an "ideology" can you call a set of beliefs about sex and gender that include such things as "Trans Women Are Women" (quite often used as a thought-terminating cliche, like when it's chanted mindlessly by activists trying to drown out all opposition), which is basically a supernatural belief in gendered souls that supposedly take precedence over the actual bodies of the people involved. It's disingenuous to claim one side of this culture war is "those in power" and one side is "those without power", as all sorts of people and institutions with political or cultural power have taken one or the other side (activists love to cite massive numbers of mainstream institutions on their side to buttress a claim that the other side is "fringe"), and the balance of power is ever-shifting and varies greatly in different places. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And as a vaguely muslim agnostic, I cannot help but point out you're promoting them anyways. Those most vocally opposing "gender ideology" are precisely those with "a supernatural belief in gendered souls that supposedly take precedence over the actual bodies of the people involved" (note how often its used to justify stripping people's bodily autonomy on the assumption their gendered soul should match their body). The existence of gender identity is empirical - the term was popularized by somebody who tried to prove that it didn't exist and failed spectacularly. Empirically speaking, people have an internal schema of their sex/gender that 1) does not perfectly map onto binary conceptions of men/women and 2) does not match their sex at birth - and the reason we know that is literally just because scientists have, for hundreds of years, tried to modify it without success before finally admitting they couldn't. The social construction of gender is feminism 101 - One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.

And please, don't mistake neo-liberal orthodoxy as support of queer people. The current neo-liberal idea of trans rights is "transition for adults who can afford it and for youth whose parents support them". It is not "get all these homeless trans kids safe homes"- I prefer the open disdain of the Church to such under-handed claims of allyship and centering of wealthy trans people. But if we're discussing people and institutions with political or cultural power, sure the UN has come out in support of trans rights, but nobody ever listens to them on anything. Various world health bodies have said "being trans isn't a mental illness, trust us, we tried that approach for decades and it failed" - because yeah, they tried and failed. On one hand, you have a demographic united only by immutable characteristics and a desire not be mistreated for them who are overwhelmingly working class or lumpenproletariat who have been classified as "mentally disordered" for hundreds of years. And some governments that pay lip service to the wealthier ones while ignoring the rest. On the other, you have those who actively disdain us all. There is no meaningful sense in which trans people, as a class, have power. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

Moved from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist 04:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused why you suddenly changed your mind (dunno if this was sarcasm, but your reconsideration comment in the endorsers section tells me you're serious), but if any sort of anti-anti-LGBT essay stays up, the current name certainly works better than your suggestion. "Some queerphobia" is just too vague of a title. The problem isn't that queerphobia is okay, because it obviously isn't; the problem is that the boundaries of that definition are very loose to some people. I agree that which would outline that the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people. It's what I had been trying to say throughout the whole deletion discussion before getting shot down by multiple editors; too many of the original beliefs listed were reasonable concerns (such as trans rights conflicting with feminism or religion; you can argue which side is correct, but they do in fact conflict) being grouped with actual homophobia/transphobia. Calling reasonable concerns "queerphobia" is just hate going the other way. That's why I removed said reasonable concerns; there certainly are some things that are queerphobic, but most of the content I removed from the list is commonly held in good faith. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't that queerphobia is okay, because it obviously isn't - I didn't say okay, I said tolerated. the problem is that the boundaries of that definition are very loose to some people. - fully agree, I've met very few people with queerphobic beliefs who'd consider themselves queerphobic or to be acting with malintent, and queerphobes often do have very loose definitions of it. We can't judge "what is queerphobia" off of "what do queerphobes think?"

the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people, otherwise all behavior and arguments are fine if couched in the barest threads of civility - is a description of what a satirical essay on Wikipedia's tolerance of queerphobia in violation of its own policies would say, not a definition of it. That was not an invitation to change the essay to make it just say "that is the bar", it was an invitation to realize it's a stupid bar.

Interesting, loose definitions may include thinking that queerphobia targeted at children isn't queerphobia, [4][5] that it's not queerphobic to say LGBT identities are a mental illness [6], that the gay agenda isn't a queerphobic dogwhistle[7], and That marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples is somehow not a queerphobic proposition by some truly Olympian mental gymnastics[8]............... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you misinterpreted almost every single thing I said, it almost seems like you're assuming bad faith. You should really remove the "friendly" part of your username, because your comment is a very blatant personal attack towards me, and if you do that garbage one more time I may have to report you to ANI.

• I'll start with the one single thing you did not misinterpret in your comment above. I admit that the LGBT parenting bullet point was something I do think is homophobic; I removed it after seeing Ficaia's statement that the bullet point is problematic. I personally don't agree that that specific bullet is problematic, but I'd prefer if nothing on this essay was even potentially problematic, which is why I removed it. I'm not going to complain about that one being added back. I'll let Ficaia explain their viewpoint on this.
• The loose definitions of queerphobia were directed at editors who think that real medical debates should be called queerphobia, but you completely misinterpreted it as queerphobes having the loose definition with equally Olympian mental gymnastics. Like I said, you can argue if feminism or religion are correct to conflict with LGBT rights (although I'll disagree if you argue against feminism), but the fact is they do conflict, and both of those bullet points have no place in this essay, hence why they were removed, and hence why several editors struck their !delete votes when they were removed. I've been reading the Wikipediocracy commentary to this essay, and one person made a very good point that, before the removals, There's not a complete consensus on some of these things [being queerphobic beliefs] even among LGBT people.
• I do agree that saying there is a "gay agenda" could be considered queerphobic, but listing it in this essay is also leaning close to a personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on… political beliefs… directed against another editor or a group of editors (although it's not directed at anybody specific, it's clearly singling out groups of editors who believe in it as bigots who should be blocked) and per the essay guidelines, personal attacks aren't supposed to be in essays (hence why that list of anti-LGBT organizations was rightfully removed). It's also just a fact that the other bigotry essays don't single out at least ten pages like this. Even if you don't consider listing dogwhistle pages as a personal attack, it's still inconsistent with the other bigotry pages.
• You accuse me of saying that it's not queerphobic to say LGBT identities are a mental illness. I specifically state in that edit summary The whole article talks about mental health, and while "illness" probably is the incorrect term, it very much says that the mental health must be treated. Keyword, "illness is probably the incorrect term". Way to go with the full misinterpretation.
• Once again there is a loose definition of queerphobia by accusing me of thinking that queerphobia targeted at children isn't queerphobia. As I said before, it's also leaning close to a personal attack. As I and several others have mentioned many times, this is a real medical debate. As Barnards.tar.gz stated on the MfD, "genital surgery should not be prescribed to children"… is the legitimate recommendation of nearly every MEDORG. There is currently a major international debate in the medical literature (not just in polemical media articles) about the rights and wrongs of transgender healthcare, and there are broad ranges of opinions that aren't in the least bit hateful, yet are manifestly within the scope of what this essay brands as hate. Yes, I am now aware that you transitioned as a minor, which is likely why you feel so strongly about that particular loose equivalence to "queerphobia", and I completely understand your feelings toward it. However, the fact of the matter is that anything that is a real debate should not be listed as hate, lest it be used to shut down editors who are editing neutrally instead of outright picking a side. It's telling that the removal of that is what caused several editors to strike their !delete votes - it's because much of what the essay considered hate isn't actually hate, hence my statement of "loose definitions of queerphobia" before it was flipped around with equally Olympian mental gymnastics. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry but we're not going to relitigate this word salad. You should maybe read through some of the wikipedia pages in the list you tried to remove for not being similar enough to what's in WP:HID. Especially grooming conspiracy theory, mentions of which you tried to remove several times from the list of common beliefs because you didn't think they were queer-phobic enough. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, saying that I {{tq|tried to remove [the LGBT grooming conspiracy from the list] several times from the list of common beliefs] is just a completely false aspersion. I touched that bullet point once, and I didn't even remove it outright; I was merging it into a similar point. You are right that I removed it when I was removing the "sociological context", although that's because I was removing the whole section, not the conspiracy specifically, and it still remains in the bullet list; no matter your opinion on my edits, take a look at the other bigotry essays (No Nazis, No Racists, etc), and see how they do not single out a bunch on mainspace pages like this one does. How can I trust an editor who will make shit up about me and refuse to even discuss changes to a page? Yeah sorry but we're not going to relitigate this word salad makes it very clear that you are not open to discussing this, which is a problem for what is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Just like how you want me to cut it out with editing this page to not be so accusatory, cut it out with the false aspersions. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so you got rid of it twice, referring to it as "too controversial" the first time and "a personal attack" the second, you also mentioned it not being in other essays as a reason, which you just repeated here, so you don't disagree with that characterisation. It's not aspersions, it's just me mentioning a thing you did indeed do several times.

As for the part after that, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. And no. I am not required to answer every challenge, and I'm definitely not required to listen to you make comments or speculations about other editors' medical records and how that may or may not affect their editing. That is wildly inappropriate. I'm also not going to get into your ridiculous interpretation of what is and is not a personal attack, because honestly, I think it's a waste of time and energy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You're still making shit up about me. I literally just said I merged it the first time, and you're still accusing me of removing it outright; I did not outright remove it. It still remained, I just merged it into another bullet point because they were similar. The other removals in that edit were because they were too controversial, but that one you keep flogging me for was because of redundancy, not controversy. WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to you too. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on the first removal, but the other point in that edit you removed is arguably even stranger. I'm not even sure how you see that one as controversial. Anyway, here's you removing the point right next to it also against consensus. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finally seeing that I was merging that first bullet point instead of deleting it. I apologize for not seeing this comment before going to ANI. I stand by the removal of the litter box hoax point not only being controversial, but now that I know it is a specific case I think it deserves to stay gone, because it's way too specific. To tackle the core issue, as I stated, there are real debates regarding the safety of transgender surgeries for children. Anything about homosexual youth is fine, but when there are well sourced debates surrounding the safety of giving surgeries to transgender youth, I'd like to kill the risk of any legitimate discussions regarding that subject being shut down with an aspersion of "queerphobia", which a couple editors have proven to me will happen if that bullet point and any similar ones stay up. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so this one you appear to legitimately not be aware of: Transgender surgery is not done to children, only social transition. Medical transition is not usually started until after 16. It's also a multi-staged process, meaning they start with the most reversible stuff first and check at every step if the next step is warranted before proceeding. In most countries, you also need a specialist to sign off on it to even be eligible. This is a process that takes years, so even teenagers who start very early have plenty of time to reconsider, and surgery before adulthood is not generally done at all. (according to our own article "in rare cases may be performed on adolescents if health care providers agree there is an unusual benefit to doing so or risk to not performing it.") --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I legitimately was unaware that medical transition isn't done before somebody is 16, or in other words close enough to 18. While I am still uncomfortable with listing it as a bullet due to outsiders like me getting the association that it could mean 7 year olds are getting genital surgery, if it's actually common knowledge that genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers, it could be added back. Obviously with a less specific example than the litter box one. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion below which may help to address this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). [9] I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. I'd respond to the rest of your arguments, but frankly that one speaks for itself. But, I don't have the time to take you to AE today, so I'll assume good faith.

In any case, cry as much as you want about how regardless of your thoughts on whether queerphobia isn't queerphobia when kids are the target, the essay isn't going to change and remove all mention of trans youth for you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Updated my comment, my apologies for being too brusque in it originally. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. That was as blatant of a personal attack as one could be. By saying "I'd say you were a queerphobic troll", you did literally just that. You say you'll assume good faith, but every single reply you and Licks-Rocks have made to me in the past few day or two has implied the complete opposite, and both of you are raising very big WP:CIVIL concerns. Additionally, the sarcastic Non-Endorsement was extremely disruptive. Frankly, you could have avoided this whole mess without it. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You say this immediately after you speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not speculate on YNFS's competency based on her age at transition at all. You are still making stuff up about me to make me look worse. I said which is likely why you feel so strongly about that particular loose equivalence to "queerphobia", and I completely understand your feelings toward it. Keyword, I completely understand your feelings toward it". Not once did I question her competency as an editor; my statement of "loose equivalence" was referring to the content, not the user. After the blatant personal attack and thinly veiled name calling, her competency is in question now, and it's because of her user conduct, civility, and the disruptive sarcastic Non-Endorsement. Her gender identity or age at transition has nothing to do with these questions. Do not reply to this further, I'm taking both of you to ANI. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think loose equivalence referred to the user, I think the "which is likely why you feel so strongly" did. And further, I think the fact you brought it up at all is inappropriate. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up because I was unaware that YFNS transitioned as a minor until she brought it up on the Recent Deletions section (I did not read her userpage). That was me trying to be sympathetic to her, and both of you blew it. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So what about queermisia? It's an alternate term to queerphobia. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Hydrangeans

Moved from Hydrangeans 07:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You seriously want to revert to the version that lists That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women and That LGBT rights conflict with parental or religious rights as "queerphobia"? I don't think you realize that the removal of those false equivalences is what made several editors strike their !delete votes. Even though I did not strike my !delete despite me making those edits, the fact that others struck theirs shows that their removals were improvements to the essay. I only didn't strike mine because it was easy to see this essay getting abused to do exactly what the "Aspersion" section says not to do (and something that I feel you have repeatedly proven my worries on): Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. (Surprisingly, I had nothing to do with this section and didn't know it existed until I reread it near the end of the deletion discussion). Unnamed anon (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Groups known to target the LGBT community

Libs of TikTok is a person, not a group. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If we keep the section, I support removing Libs of TikTok. The rest are advocacy organizations known for pushing pseudoscience about LGBT people, Libs of TikTok is one person known for attacking people on social media. I've seen people try to cite the former category quite often, while I've yet to see (apart from very rare and quickly shut down SPAs) anyone try to cite Libs of TikTok. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of this section

Regarding my deletion of this section and the restoration by Bilorv, my problem with the list is that it looks like a call to action. If I was slightly more cynical, I might call it a Dog whistle (politics). The previous section urges people to "improve articles", and then this section presents a list of articles. The logical assumption is that readers of the essay are being asked to target those articles, and that's what doesn't seem appropriate here. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the connection with the previous section; the sentence that you quote from is about not engaging in off-topic debates that are unrelated to improving Wikipedia articles. The section that you removed describes its list as sources to be avoided. I can't see how it would encourage anyone to "target" those articles (whatever "target" means—do you mean "improve"?). — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The sister essays don't include such a section, and I would argue that inclusion of it here is tantamount to targeting and labeling. Let those article speak for themselves, an essay such as this is not the place to aggregate a list of groups or people it doesn't like. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The logical assumption is that readers of the essay are being asked to target those articles - I wrote quite a few of them for the record. I don't think this essay in any way encourages people to target them - the articles are already clear they're FRINGE groups, and as long as we don't suddenly declare Breitbart a RS that's unlikely to change - if anything the section bears a greater risk of directing those who like them to try and non-neutrally edit their articles to remove the mentions of misinformation.

I would argue that inclusion of it here is tantamount to targeting and labeling - those articles all have multiple RS pointing out they're known for misinformation, and the section had citations backing up that they are known for misinformation. We have had RSN discussions on about half of them off the top of my head ([10][11][12][13]), all agreeing they're FRINGE advocacy groups.

The sister essays don't include such a section - they don't need to and that's not a policy based argument. But additionally, the simple reason for that is there are active groups known for spreading misinformation about the LGBT community while less are known for spreading racist pseudoscience. If you were to draft up a list of organizations known for pushing racist/nazi povs and had RS backing that up, I'd support that being in the sister essays. I'll also note WP:FRINGE lists multiple examples of FRINGE formulations and unreliable sources (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Homeopathy (journal), Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, Astrology, Autodynamics).

To clarify, are y'all arguing that there were examples on the list that aren't known for misinformation and targeting the LGBT community? Or are y'all arguing that while they obviously all do, the essay's not the place for them? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to describe it as a list of frequently encountered sources with an irreconcilable anti-LGBT bias or which are otherwise blatantly unreliable on GENSEX matters. Various anti-LGBT groups, like the SEGM and ACPeds have names which are meant to sound like legitimate medical organizations to the lay reader. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm arguing that if they're not deemed to be reliable sources, WP:RSP should be sufficient to convey that information and duplicating information should generally be avoided per WP:REDUNDANTESSAY. It could also be argued that it's skirting policy per MOS:LABEL. My arguments are based on policy, in addition to the reality that such a section seems to be avoided in other, similar, essays. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Renamed to "No queerphobia"

As was suggested in the (briefly prematurely closed and reopened) MFD discussion, a user ([14]) suggested a better title of No queerphobia, which I believe is a better more neutral title, since queerphobia does represent the noun of the hate that the essay is trying to capture and is more in line with the title of Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Raladic (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I support this move, I was mostly ambivalent on it when naming the essay and chose queerphobes over queerphobia to keep consistency with WP:No Nazis, WP:No racists, and WP:No Confederates but I personally prefer it as No queerphobia. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the MfD notice so interested editors will be notified, but the article name change causes a redlink because it was nominated under a different title. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the redlink for the mfd notice, so we should be all good now. Raladic (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just something to bear in mind for next time, Raladic: we usually don't move articles while they're at XfD, because it can confuse various templates and scripts and/or can be seen as pre-empting the result of the discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t plan to (move it during can active xfd), but some user unilaterally moved it out into user space when the xfd was briefly closed by someone out of procedure and when I asked an admin for help they told me they are involved and didn’t want to help move it back - User talk:Girth Summit#Someone just broke all procedures and moved Wikipedia:No queerphobes. So my move to the new slightly different name happened in between that time where the MfD was briefly closed and before it was reopened again. The MfD was reopened minutes later after someone pointed out that it should not have been closed. Raladic (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I only withdrew my calling for a Move in the MFD discussion as I felt you should be free to build your own essay in the manner you chose; certainly my own belief is "no queerphobia" accords more with what I see as proper goals than the current title. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

userboxes/userpages in possible manifestations

Under the section "Possible manifestations", it includes Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBT sentiments. Are we sure that this causes disruption as much as the other items listed? Maybe we should try to specify userboxes or userpages that would cause discomfort when read by LGBT editors? Or just remove it completely? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

@Unnamed anon I disagree with your deletions. One specific problem: the source on characterization as mental illness does support the claim: legislative efforts to restrict access to care have involved the dissemination of misleading and unfounded narratives (e.g., mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence, and equating affirming care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary youth with child abuse)

Please consider self-reverting. You have provided no adequate justification for those removals.

1. No reasoning was provided for what Some1 has suggested as "improvements".
2. Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here [15] - while you deleted a statement that wasn't controversial at all.
3. Everything in life is a conscious choice [16] I have no idea what you mean. So you consciously choose to be assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth? The lead for Biology and sexual orientation seems to not agree with you removing that.
4. [17] See my quote from the source above.
5. All the rest are unexplained removals.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of telling Unnamed anon, who has made good faith edits to improve the essay (and I find his edits to be improvements), to wholesale revert, what specifically do you want added back or changed? Some1 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See my five points above. The wholesale removal of content has not been justified at all. In the case where edit summaries actually had some substance, I have outlined why I find them problematic.

This reply does not give me an impression that you have read what I wrote. Maybe you could have engaged with the points I made.

If no response had been given, I'd consider reverting these removals. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually after giving it some more consideration, I'm just going to revert the parts I disagree with (and have responded to here). A wholesale revert is quite antagonistic I suppose. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The 'Queerphobic beliefs' section (current version: [18]) actually looks pretty decent now. Thanks for striking parts of your comment and for not wholesale reverting. Some1 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about quite a few removals, particularly the ones about youth.

Removal of: That LGBT children only identify as such due to media exposure, peer pressure or "social contagion" (see Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and Acquired homosexuality). (deleted)

• The reason given[19] was I implemented the changes that Some1 suggested (suggestions here) - Some1 didn't mention this - no reason was given for deletion. Many people continuously try and push the belief that LGBT kids are turning LGBT through the media and their friend groups.

Changed text: That the LGBT community is grooming children or otherwise dangerous to them. -> That an LGBT person is automatically grooming minors or is otherwise dangerous.

• Same edit as above (and same issue of no explanation, referencing somebody who didn't mention it). The conspiracy is that the LGBT community as a whole is doing this. Also, how does an LGBT person is automatically grooming minors apply to LGBT youth?

Changed text: That trans people should be unable to change their legal gender, be excluded from gendered spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing gender-affirming healthcare. -> That transgender people should be unable to change their gender, and that gender-affirming healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible.

• Change their gender is meaningless - the issue is legal recognition of that gender.(Backed as a human right by the UN[20])
• be excluded from gendered spaces - The UN recognizes also this right[21]
• Same edit as above. No reasons were given for 1) the removal of "legal" or 2) the removal of mentioning gendered spaces. Some1 suggested removing from gendered spaces but gave no reasoning.

Removal of: That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity.

• This had the comment Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here)[22] Apart from that being nonsense (an essay on queerphobia should probably mention that, yknow, there are queer kids who you don't suddenly get a queerphobia free pass on) - accepting transgender youth is not a slippery slope to anything and its offensive to suggest otherwise. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I made these two edits [23] [24] per your feedback. Some1 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I do think we need to be somewhat more explicit about LGBT youth, as the most common queerphobic FRINGE povs I see pushed tend to frame themselves as "protecting the children". Like with social contagion - the rule of thumb for transphobic discourse is trans people under 18 are indoctrinated and groomed, while those over 18 are the ones who must be grooming them. Most queerphobia I've seen on this platform is targeted towards youth. I personally find it absurdly comical, because I transitioned as a minor, that if an editor told me "you shouldn't have transitioned" or "you are cis and were indoctrinated into being trans", they'd be blocked for the personal attack - but if they say "transgender minors should be barred from transition" or "transgender children are cis kids being indoctrinated into being trans en masse", targeting an entire demographic instead of an editor, it becomes fair game. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a bulletpoint saying: That LGBT adults are indoctrinating or grooming the youth? Some1 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that though would prefer some minor alterations: That the LGBT community or a subset of it are indoctrinating or grooming youth into being LGBT

- The main reason is because LGBT adults indoctrinate and groom youth as much as cis-het ones do and this could be read as suggesting they don't at all - the specific anti-LGBT narrative is they're making the kids LGBT. It's not anti-LGBT to point out individual cases of grooming if it's happening.

- Wrt changing LGBT adults to the LGBT community or a subset of it - similar reason to the above, the anti-LGBT narrative is that there is a coherent community (or subset, as before 2000 it was usually specified gay men and since 2000 it's more often specified as trans people) doing the indoctrination/grooming systematically rather than any individual. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and have added it [25]. Some1 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! I think the section's looking better than it originally did.

My only remaining concern is the "conscious choice" removal - publicly identifying as LGBT is a conscious choice, but so far medical consensus is that being LGBT is not (ie, sexual orientation and gender identity can't be modified and are innate). I think this view is foundational to a lot of anti-LGBT narratives because they start from the premise that one can simply choose to not be LGBT. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Added: [26] Some1 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this[27]: the removal of That transgender women who aren't exclusively attracted to men are fetishists (Blanchard's transsexualism typology). with the comment This one isn't as controversial as the others I removed, but this is hyper-specific and strange to list among a bunch of general beliefs

• 1) It wasn't among general beliefs, it was in the section for pseudoscience specifically
• 2) While I'd agree that this view is very specific, one of the key proponents of this theory James Cantor/User:James Cantor (known professionally for FRINGE lobbying on transgender issues) edited wikipedia for over a decade and, in the course of ~10,000 edits, snuck the typology into wikivoice in (at a very conservative estimate) dozens of articles (mostly citing his own letters to the editor and those of his friends). A few months ago I got one of his POV forks deleted that had stayed up for over a decade which he wrote just to promote the theory (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence concept of transsexuality).
• 3) So, TLDR, on any other website or place would we mention the typology? Honestly probably not, it went out of vogue in the mid-to-late 2000s (though has been making a comeback since 2020). However, those websites did not have one of the theory's progenitors edit it into articles for over a decade.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange to me to single out Trans women in a bullet point, but I've made this edit [28] linking "fetishistic" to Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Let me know what you think. Some1 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That works for me, and I see Roxy added it to the see also as well.

I was less concerned about this bullet point than the other ones I mentioned because it's so specific, I just thought it beared some mention somewhere given the historical context of the theory's promotion on Wikipedia.

If I could've thought of other similar theories I'd have tried to combine them and make it more general - the typology is unique because it's a FRINGE framework encompassing both gender and sexuality, while others tend to be FRINGE views of one or the other. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References

What is in a COI?

So apparently people believe that a genuine COI actually can exist when it comes to queer editors editing about queer topics. I have no idea that the term COI can be used this way. I will quote Unnamed anon who was pushing this point, and had this comment from the MfD:

[W]hile it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors).

And I can't help but feel confused by what they are really saying. Like LGBT editors can't have.. opinions on LGBT issues anymore? Another quote from Unnamed anon:

But a comment like I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of … writing … that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest, and the bullet point can easily be used to say "No I don't have a COI, this essay says so!"

And what precedent is there in suggesting people that have strong feelings about the subject have a COI? Are there feminists that have a COI in regards to feminism and the patriarchy? And are there people of color that have a COI regarding critical race theory?

So, like.. How do you even have a conflict of interest with regards to queer topics? Are there transgender stocks I can buy? Or can I get hired by the alphabet mafia? Can someone educate me on this with an example? I didn't even know that the term COI can be used for this at all. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The most charitable reading is people are imagining the situation "1) LGBT editor writes about their own company 2) the COI is brought up 3) the editor says it's not a COI because they're LGBT and point here". If that is the case, "you can't accuse people of having a COI just because they're LGBT" being taken as "you can't accuse LGBT people of having a COI ever" is a stretch reminiscent of Mr Fantastic.

The less charitable reading is they're just doubling down on the idea "LGBT people have a COI because of their identity" - which seems a reasonable read given that definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest is being said in relation to my exasperation with the FRINGE views that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists (and I publicly state on my userpage I'm a trans woman and transitioned as a kid) and their other comments such as the first quote you mention or that or be used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious. I would not take this argument that seriously, especially given only one editor seems to believe it and also thinks comments like all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists are POVs being silenced instead of FRINGE nonsense we ignore. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The very idea that queer editors cannot be unbiased on queer topics is hate speech. Are we likewise saying that straight people cannot be unbiased on biographies of straight people? White people cannot be unbiased on biographies of white people? Americans cannot be unbiased on US history and politics?

Suggestions that LGBTQ+ editors should not edit on LGBTQ+ topics or should not have opinions on policies that affect LGBTQ+ topics and contributors are not compatible with the Universal Code of Conduct and I would suggest such trolls should be considered for a community ban. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that the majority of LGBT editors are not biased on LGBT topics. I only occasionally edit LGBT topics (my primary interest is with media such as books, comics, film, tv, and games), but the few times I did, I have encountered some LGBT editors who showed very good neutrality on the topic (Tamzin comes to mind). However, I am uncomfortable with this bullet point because, as I have stated many times, this feels like an attempt to claim that LGBT editors are never biased, when that clearly is not the case. The idea that queer editors can't be biased on queer topics is hate speech, but the idea that they will never be biased at all is also bad, and the latter is the idea that I'm getting (and I'm certain others will get) from this bullet point unless there is some sort of clarification. The word "inherent" was a good addition to show that not all LGBT editors have a bias on these topics, but I think an additional clarification is needed because one word doesn't make it obvious enough.

As for your examples of Are we likewise saying that straight people cannot be unbiased on biographies of straight people? White people cannot be unbiased on biographies of white people? Americans cannot be unbiased on US history and politics?, my answer remains the same: yes, it is entirely possible for a straight editor to be biased on the BLP for a straight person, a white editor to act in bias and remove all controversy in an article for a white person, or an American editor to push a POV on US politics. It does not happen all the time, and I have personally never encountered any of these, but it can and likely has and will happen (especially the US politics example). Unnamed anon (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bias is not conflict of interest, at least not as the term is used on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COINOTBIAS, which is part of our Conflict of Interest guideline. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

COI is not merely bias, but at least from what I understand, COI is bias that affects a user's editing patterns to the point where information presented is no longer factual. Like I said, I do like the addition of the word "inherent", as it makes it clear that not all LGBT editors let their identity get in the way of editing LGBT pages neutrally. However, I still want to avoid any sort of possibility that this bullet point will be used to defend any sort of wrong edit. While one word made a huge positive difference, I fear it won't be enough. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Two things are wrong: From what I have seen, your understanding of what a COI is is different from most editors here. It is fine for you to keep that opinion, but keep that in mind in discussions e.g. when suggesting that someone has a COI because of this difference.

And the other part would be thinking that adding that bullet point serves any purpose other than to suggest that "Okay, maybe not all LGBT editors have a COI, but there are some LGBT editors on here that are just biased and I think they have a COI". From YFNS's summary above, if a person is willing to quote that bullet point in the essay to suggest that because they are an LGBT editor, they can't have a COI in the company that literally hired them to edit, they are willing to ignore any supposed "reminder" for them. "Inherent" already makes it quite clear.

So if you continue to argue for its inclusion without any new points, it probably means that you want to POV push and that is not really good. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your and YFNS's points that an editor who would ignore any sort of reminder that they may have a COI would ignore it regardless of if a notice was on this page is a good point that I did not account for. I apologize for not realizing that sooner, and I'll leave it as the word "inherent" being clear enough. The more I think about it, that one word does make the point clearer way more than I initially thought. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the WP:conflict of interest in Wikipedia terms is not dependent on the edits not being factual. I can go and add a thousand absolutely true facts about me top Nat Gertler... heck, I could even just tune what's there up to match with Wikipedia standards better... and even if every fact were correct and every edit brought it closer to guidelines, I would still have a conflict of interest. I have now edited the statement in the article, which was already linked to our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI, to display in such a way to make it clearer that we are talking about "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia terms, not whatever definition one might wish to bring to the table. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"inherently sexual"

There's been some back and forth over the phrase "That LGBT people are inherently sexual, fetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous", with me as the instigator, because L, G, and B people are sexual in the same sense that most people, including straight people, are sexual. (There are As among the Ts, of course.) That doesn't mean that they are being actively sexual at all times. What I think this is meant to get at may be better stated as "That LGBT people are inherently fetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous, and that their identified presence makes matters sexual in a way that the presence of straight people does not." Does that meet others' views of what should be covered? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I gently lean towards "inherently sexual" for 2 main reasons:

1) you can have asexual (which doesn't preclude all sexual desire)/aromatic LGB people as well as trans people (I know a surprisingly large number of asexual trans LGB people for that matter)

2) sexual is the wording of the anti-LGBT narratives. L, G, and B people are sexual in the same sense that most people, including straight people, are sexual - is definitely true, but is applying logic to an illogical argument, those making the argument are those who see straight people kissing all the time without blinking and but act like they're being strapped to a clockwork orange type chair to watch gay porn if they see a gay couple kissing or see a transgender person just walking around

I like the track of and that their identified presence makes matters sexual in a way that the presence of straight people does not because it better encapsulates the issue of the second point but it feels too wordy. Perhaps and that being openly LGBT is inherently sexual in a way being straight/cisgender isn't? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what you get into with the existing wording is that there is a range of definitions (or at least understandings) for "sexual", and while there are clinical discussions where the "sexual" and the "romantic" are clearly separated, that is not the case for much common usage. Trying to say that people with certain sexualities (including one that has sexual built into the term) are not sexual is apt to at least get a linguistic side-eye.

I am a little uncomfortable with the "openly" because some of the key examples that come to mind are queer-coded characters being treated as a problem in children's literature (forgive me, I'm a publisher, I see the world through books.) Perhaps that those perceived as LGBT is inherently sexual in a way being perceived as straight isn't? (I'm unsure the /cisgender is needed; I'm used to straight being not just hetero, but off of the alphabet list altogether.) But then I'm also trying to phrase it so that it's the situation that's sexual, not just the person. Maybe an LGBT presence makes matters sexual in a way that a straight presence does not? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

100% wrt the linguistic side eye lol.

That's a good point, thanks for raising it! And fair enough wrt "straight", I use it that way colloquially too and have to remember to be explicitly broader with lay audiences sometimes. Both those phrasing seem somewhat clunky still, partly because I think the bullets are largely clear these views are all in the eye of the beholder, but I lean towards the latter. I think that being publicly[openly?] LGBT or queer coded is inappropriately sexual [unlike being publicly straight-presenting] might work. The "inappropriately" conveys the other meaning of sexual imo.

Another part of this is the usual hypothesized victim is the child who will supposedly be damaged by seeing queer people IRL or suggestions of them in media.

Honestly, we're trying to pack so much into this I think another bullet might be called for so we can expand the point. Something like:

• That the open or subtextual presence of LGBT people or acknowledgement of them is inappropriately sexual and/or political and should be restricted/banned in the public square, media, or education

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd simplify "restricted/banned in" to "kept from", which also gets around efforts that are not legalistic in nature. Otherwise, good! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

References

I feel that the "Queerphobic beliefs" section should be properly referenced so readers can know more on the talking points. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nutshell edit

@Cambalachero, can you please revert this edit to the nutshell so we can discuss it here?[29]

I'd like to discuss and address your concerns, my main issue is the nutshell no longer makes sense as it reads It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.

The second clause of the first sentence which you removed(to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS) is necessary for the second sentence This essay expands them to make sense.

Regarding your edit summary Those are just essays, and can't be used to justify a block - this is also an essay and has the same (in)ability to justify a block. Yet, I see WP:HID often cited in blocks as a shorthand. To my knowledge, it is common for essays to mention inspirational essays (WP:NORACISTS notes how it came from WP:NONAZIS for example). As this essay is WP:HID applied to queer topics, I feel it should be mentioned.

How would you feel about something like to block editors for queerphobia as laid out in WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS? For the record, I'm fine with just mentioning WP:HID without mention of WP:NORACISTS in the nutshell as it's more directly relevant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocks that cite essays are common. Many essays are just shorthand for cogent policy/guideline-based arguments. In addition to HID, you'll see many blocks citing WP:BLUDGEON and many unblocks that cite WP:ROPE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that I see it in more detail, the idea of the "This page in a nutshell" template is to explain the main idea of the page in just a few words. The second sentence fails to do that. It's basically a summary that says "the main text says a lot of things". Cambalachero (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Page move

I would like to put my objections to the move into userspace on the record. This sets a dangerous precedent in which valid essays can be shouted down with a heckler's veto. I appreciate that there was a lot of noise, and that it became disruptive, but I think that rewarding that disruption in this way can only encourage much more of the same. I hope that we can get this valid and helpful essay back into its correct position sooner rather than later. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this essay, good editors were wasting too much time with this. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

_{It was certainly a bold move! (sorry, I'll see myself out).} --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This move is contrary to the outcome of both the MfD and (withdrawn) deletion review. It certainly does feel like I wasted my time participating in those discussions if the outcome is just going to be discarded by a single editor without discussion.

Any ongoing disruption after MfD and the withdrawn review settled the matter is a result of one editor repeatedly trying to edit an essay they disagree with. I agree with Daniel that if that is all that is needed to get an essay userfied, that is a bad precedent, one incompatible with WP:PG explicitly allowing project namespace essays that represent a minority viewpoint.--Trystan (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

heat/light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Seawolf35: let me understand what you meant in your summary, this essay would prevent you from editing? Why? --MikutoH talk! 22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I took [Revert move]: So I don't get calls for bans against me. as a recognition of the fact that some editors might feel strongly about an editor single-handledly userfying the page in spite of the substantial keep consensus demonstrated by the deletion discussions. Some would call that an inappropriate unilateral move, a egregious misuse of page moving permissions, or generally a pretty tone-deaf and hare-brained idea, and reverting it was a wise course of action. Implying that the only reason you're performing a given action is because you're being held hostage by a hypothetical witchhunt of bloodthirsty and irrational editors calling for CBANs against you feels a teensy bit like an aspersion, but I'm choosing not to see it that way. Hopefully my fellow Evil Wikipedia LGBT Cabal members will feel the same. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) @RoxySaunders What it meant is that I hold an opinion, my opinion, nothing more, that there are some editors who seek to expel any editor they can from the project, no matter what topic field or page. Again, it is my opinion. Side note: Anybody could have made that move, you didn't need page mover permissions. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems best off staying in userspace as a contentious opinion on a hot-button issue. When I wrote my own essay years ago on the internally contentious issue of a debate over whether links to so-called "attack sites" should be banned, I did it as a userspace essay instead of a project-space one to emphasize that it was my own opinon that I wasn't claiming to be anybody else's: User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy Then I later started up another essay (Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander) in project space because I saw that one as a more general principle, written in an evenhanded way, not taking sides on culture wars. That's the distinction as I see it, and both essays have stayed up where I put them. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It was kept at MfD 10 days ago and it survived a deletion review 9 days ago. Has the situation really changed since the option of moving to userspace was discussed on the MfD and was not successful? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Seems like a bad idea to move right after the MFD and review. Plus if good editors want to waste time on whatever, they are more than welcome to. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, despite my above comments about preferring it to be a user essay, given the outcome of the deletion discussion and review it shouldn't be moved. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    • In spite of my above comments as well, I also disagree about the page's prior move; that went pretty blatantly against the consensus to keep. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Common misconceptions" section

Unnamed anon's latest contribution gave me an idea that may be useful: how about a section that lists common misconceptions. We can do that either on top of the "common transphobic beliefs" section, which could then be focused a bit more on ideology (e.g. religious stigma), or in place of it. This would allow us to discuss the common hoaxes and misconceptions a bit more at length, with links to relevant pages/(re)sources built in. I think this would also help to reduce some of the irritation from editors who currently don't like this essay. I'm noticing some of the stuff in the current "queerphobic belief" section is stuff that kind of needs prior subject knowledge to understand the why, and most of that is because it comes down to misleading phrasing or common gaps in knowledge (e.g. the youth transgender surgery example I discussed with UA above: it's not immediately obvious to an outsider what care is being provided at what age!), and a section like this would allow us to split that out a bit more. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: Honestly, that seems like a good section title, since it's not hostile to outsiders who believe it. I think it's a good idea to split the sections, with the current beliefs section listing things that are blatantly offensive, while the misconceptions section would be for beliefs that could be considered offensive but can also be held in good faith. My biggest complaint was mixing those two as the same thing, but your idea sounds like it could solve that complaint, depending on how it's written. I apologize for the ANI report, I think I was frazzled since I was arguing with another editor at the same time, and I believe the two of us can work together constructively. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm seriously doubting whether you're participating here in good faith, Unnamed anon. You couldn't have phrased it worse. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)