# Talk:Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire

The captions of the illustrations are incorrect. The second illustration is later (turn of the nineteenth century) and the third illustration is from the Khamsa of Atai. 108.26.180.106 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahklubnik (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by EmPatch (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement "the view of the Ottomans as addicted to the "filthy pleasures" of pederasty is, if not constant, at least a leitmotif in Western discourse from the time of the Crusades ..." is attributed to Stephen O. Murray. This seems unlikely. The last crusade was in 1272, the first Ottoman state appeared in 1299. So even if Murray did write it, it's not true and shouldn't be mentioned. Maproom (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, later crusades did happen, see for example the Crusade of Varna. Uness232 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The quotation is accurate; if you have Wikipedia Library access, the full article is available to read. If people wish to unlink the Crusades article to avoid confusion, or remove that part of the comment or otherwise reword the statement, I have no objection. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
GnocchiFan: I have access to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ and have tried searching there. What should I put in its search box to find the relevant pdf, please? Maproom (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
It's available through JSTOR, which should be accessible through the Wikipedia Library (link to the article). I had to click through to JSTOR from the main page and search there as it wouldn't let me search through the main library search. Hopefully this makes sense. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully I've re-phrased this so it makes more sense. Feel free to comment further here or on the Peer Review for this article. Thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Maproom: I know that a peer review is under way and so the article may look a lot different now. Just want to check if the current wording is better. (The previous wording was a direct quote, but may have been confusing). GnocchiFan (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@GnocchiFan: At the start of the "Western perceptions" section I read "European concepts of Ottoman Turks being addicted to pederasty and sexual perversion pre-date the Ottoman Empire; Stephen O. Murray says that it goes back to the time of the failed Crusades". I click on Ottoman Turks and read the dates (c. 1299/1302–1922). I click on Crusades and read "military expeditions ... in the period between 1095 and 1291".
Ok, it's all a bit more complicated than that. There were Ottoman Turks, an Ottoman dynasty, and an Ottoman Empire. There were later crusades, mostly failures and mostly not directed against Ottoman territories. But that sentence still gives the impression that Murray was mistaken. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Maproom: I understand the concern. If you want to remove this from the article entirely to avoid any confusion, I will not object. If you wish to rephrase it in a way that you think is better, let me know also. Thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@GnocchiFan: I've removed the sentence. Whether or not it reflects what Murray said, it's misleading. If I had access to the source, I might find that there's something useful there. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Maproom: If you have access to the Wikipedia Library, you should have access to JSTOR and search for the article through that way (that's how I have access to the article). GnocchiFan (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The title used here is rather awkward. It reads as though the article is about two somewhat related but also quite distinct topics, gender and sexual minorities.
Is it supposed to be understood as "gender minorities and sexual minorities"? Peter Isotalo 10:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi - yes, it is understood to be the latter. I understand your point, but "gender and sexual minorities" is a standard term in this field (see Google Scholar results).
I wouldn't object to a potential move to Gender and sexuality in the Ottoman Empire (as suggested in the above discussion by Yaguzi) if this would help clarify things. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) 09:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, I am VenusFeuerFalle. I got recommended to review this article and I am looking forward to do it. Although I helped to bring a few articles to GA before.
with best regards--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on, I very much appreciate it!  GnocchiFan (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know, that I feel ill and still have two weeks work to go. I may not respond everyday, but I will do my best to review the article carefully and in due time. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  Passed b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  Passed
I request some major changes. Until they are not made, I cannot judge about the general layout.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  Passed b (inline citations to reliable sources):  Passed c (OR):  Passed d (copyvio and plagiarism):  Passed
The section Literature and art needs an overhaul. It is commonly accepted that there is love of a man towards a boy as a common trope in poetry. However, it is disputed in academia how these tropes should be interpreted. The claim regarding the gazel refers to Murray, Will Roscoe. As an anthropologist, he is a good source. However, he himself states in the given source: "I will argue that the beloved in at least some medieval Persian and Turkish literature is clearly a boy, since the attributes cannot be those of Allah." Here it is clear from "at least some" that the author does agree that the idea that "the love to Allah" is always referring to another man, is exaggerated. In other words, if the trope of boys actualyl refers to male-partners, is highly disputed and aprtly rooting in a misconception about Rumi's works. For an extensive criticism on translation of the conceptualization of Rumi as "poet of love" see: Azadibougar, Omid, and Simon Patton. “Coleman Barks’ Versions of Rumi in the USA.” Translation and Literature, vol. 24, no. 2, 2015, pp. 172–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24585407.. For a more precise list of mistranslations see: https://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/corrections_popular.html#The%20Popularization. The author of the source regarding Yahya bey Dukagjini does not say, the poet dislikes hetero-relationships but "expresses his distaste for traditional narrative poems (mesnevi), which use cross-sex love as the basis of their exemplary love stories, such as the widely circulating Hüsrev u Shirin, and Layla vu Mecnun". Layla ve Mecnun is well-known story in the Middle East about a man falling in erotic love with a woman until he loses himself. The author of the article speaks about this as a homoerotic-trope. This does, however, not imply homosexuality. For further information how the trope relates to homosexuality, I can recommand: https://qantara.de/en/article/homoerotic-poetry-islam-reeling-desire. Especially this part explains the de-evaluation of hetero-relationships: "Alongside the widespread conviction that the masculine form reflected divine perfection, homoeroticism was preferred over heterosexual metaphors due to the established separation of the sexes in society. Marriage, too, had a different status. Marriages were often made on the basis of favourable alliances, while love was often found elsewhere.". I recommand to move at least parts of this section to Western perceptions, since it is a Western perception that these tropes are a secret language to express oppressed sexual desires.
Thank you, I have edited the content regarding the gazel poetry, as well as criticism of Rumi's works using the sources you mention, as well as correctly quoting what the source says about Yahya bey Dukagjini. I wasn't quite sure which content exactly should be moved to "Western perceptions" - I tried to move the content which explicitly mentions Western views, but am happy to move things back or alter this if needs be. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I have one final objection: The article states  despite de jure changes that were, in some ways, liberalizing However, I could not find that in the source, neither do I remember ever reading that the reform was called "Liberalizing" in anyway. Further note that the term "liberal" might need an explanation, due to the contextual shift of meaning, for example, political liberalism). However, I find a statement suggesting rather the opposite:  (...) in practise Ottoman norms attached no shame to sex, viewed men and women as having the same sexual nature, and accepted both hetero- and homoerotic relationships as normal. Ottoman state law (kanun) tended to equalize the treatment of men and women and of hetero- and homosexuals. (...) In puppet theater, both men and women are portrayed as avidly sexual, and women as independent and assertive. Compare this to the situation in the later stage of the Ottoman Empire:  There was a Victorian-like regression in the autonomy of women. An embarrassed silence descended on Ottoman sexual discourse. This is in line witht he general Western modern classification of women as asexual and men as effectively hyper sexual. see also: [[1]]. I cannot but see how gender were taken autonomy away, finding it hard to see any form of liberation at all. However, I do think, that the Western concept of womanhood, as an "oppressed inactive gender" entered the Ottoman society here. I recommand to either clarify what is meant by the statement "despite de jure changes that were, in some ways, liberalizing" or rewrite this part in accordance with Lapidus & Lena's statement. I would prefer the second one.
@VenusFeuerFalle: Hi, I was the one who introduced that wording, to the effect of "softening" the language about legalization. I should have sourced it to here and not the other article, but either way, the point was the same: from a strictly legal perspective, one could understand the Tanzimat to be "decriminalizing" private homosexuality. This has been the standard view of later scholars for a long time and this is noted all over Wikipedia; indeed all of our international glosses on this site state that the Ottomans decriminalized homosexuality in the 1850s. This wording is, in a way, challenging that belief, much like the Ozsoy article. I do see the point that liberalizing is a problematic word there, but I think that some form of explanation on the continued clash between de jure and de facto developments should stay.
I have two separate issues beside this I suppose; I am unsure if the idea that older Ottoman norms got "replaced" by Victorian ones is quite accurate. Obviously there is influence going on, but I don't know if scholars would go as far as to use a 'replacement' conceptualization.
Also, I am not sure if this wording was introduced during the review or beforehand, but the text on Mihri Hatun reads "it is alleged she pretends to be a man in love with a woman in order to express her own love for women." While I understand the reasoning for cautious wording, I believe the current wording is altogether too cautious. It is not alleged that she wrote such a poem, that much is known; what is up to interpretation is what that means for Mihri herself. I think it would be better if that is clarified. Uness232 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Uness232 I could not find the term 'replaced'. I merely added 'adopted', which I considered as an minor issue to fix as per WP:RGA. I agree that the term 'replaced' would be too strong, as it was a proccess, however, the process itself, ultimately leading to adopting Viktorian sexual morality, is generally accepted. Ali Ghandour (2019) dedcates an entire chapter on Victorian values and Muslim self-denial in his book. Since it is in German, I want to provide a translation on the most important part here:  In the fields of art, literature and the humanities, actors were almost exclusively active who - consciously or unconsciously - viewed European culture as a standard or ideal. Even political-religious movements like the Muslim Brotherhood were not only modern in their essence, but also reproduced European narratives, as Stefan Weidner has shown. It doesn't take much thought to imagine the sexual morality that these oriental Victorians represented. After less than a century, society was restructured. Therefore, it is not surprising that the discrepancy in the way Muslims dealt with topics such as sex and eroticism is so great before and after the 19th century. (p. 168) The author's view is generally accepted and referred to in later works. Fahimah Ulfat (2020) writes: In the 19th century, however, colonization brought about a change that led to the adoption of Victorian sexual morality by Muslims. When Muslims, who consider themselves as "traditional", promote "conservative" values, they actually reproduce European values, not Islamic ones. I cannot see any good reason to contest the claim that the attempted  restauration of the Late Ottoman Empire is an adaptation of Western values. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle Sorry, I suppose I misremembered the wording. I still see some problems with the term adoption though. My personal understanding through my own research is that the conclusion reached by Ze'evi is the most comprehensive:
The end result of this counter-attack was a pendulum movement striking  back at the Ottoman world and shutting down entire sexual discursive ﬁelds. On the one hand, the Occidentalist reaction drove home the claim about the superiority of local morality. Readers of Turkish and Arab travelogues were convinced that their sexual and moral conduct was a source of pride, in contrast to Western decadence. On the other, molding morality at home to ﬁt the new standard presented as superior necessitated far-reaching changes in the Ottoman attitude toward sex and sexuality. In other words, while reassuring themselves that their culture was still superior, at least in that crucial respect, the travelers, as well as the entire book-reading population, needed not only to ﬁnd fault with Europe but also to redeﬁne their own moral code to ﬁt these new standards, or to create an ethics of sex that heretofore had been absent from the discourse.
This conclusion would necessitate that it was not simply an adoption of Western morals that transformed Ottoman discourses of sexuality: it was a process of reinterpreting Ottoman cultural material and traditions under Western pressure, and creating a new, unique discourse of sexuality somewhat separate from (but also related to) both Western and older Ottoman norms. Adoption, meanwhile, implies a certain lack of transformative agency that the Ottomans did in fact have, and did use to create their own discourse.
I could understand that one might object to this conceptualization being presented as truth as well, but I suppose simply saying that pressure from Europe was implicated in this transformation without using the term adoption would be our best way forward. And for your last paragraph, of course that much is a given, but how the Middle East landed at its current state of affairs is a different story. Uness232 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any fundamental discrepancy, maybe it is because English is not my first language, but I do prefer your more eloquent formulation capturing more parts of the process. 'Adoption' sounds more like "yeh, we should do that too", while "pressaure" captures the reality of the process. If you do not mind, I appreciate you to rephrase  in accordance with Ze'evi's statement. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle Well, perhaps I am also inferring too much from the term. Either way, if we agree that the latter wording is better, I'll try and find a way to introduce it. Uness232 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made some changes. Hopefully none of them cause any issues in other departments. Uness232 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I personally would have appreciated a note on "Victorian values" somewhere, since I think it is a good summary of what Islamicate sexual morality will become after this period. However, I do not think it is necessary and probably something what could be contested easily. I would like to learn about @GnocchiFan's opinion on the recent changes, however. They invested most time into the article recently, so I think they should have the final say on recent edits (by both me and you). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The current version seems to have clarified things. Thank you both for all your edits and suggestions to this article, I greatly appreciate it. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  Passed b (focused):  Passed
The article focuses largely on homosexuality. However, the article is named "Gender and sexual minorities". It is anachronistic to equate these too. As the sources used in the article, especially the article written by Elif Yılmazlı, explores gender variants in greater dephts. The author further goes into detail, how "minorities" were made in the first place. The article alludes to the distinct categorization of gender in contrast to post-modernity: Gender is binary and ascribed to sexual roles. The article further clarifies that this binary is sometimes blurred. This is further confirmed by Elif Yılmazlı, however, such "feminine men" are not necessarily homosexuals. It might be helpful to explore such concepts first, before they are explained later. There are further readings on the article Third gender#Arabia. Especially the article  "The Effeminates of Early Medina" by Rowson, Everett K might shed some light on how gender and sex relate in the pre-Modern Islamic world. Furthermore, the article needs to be structured around this. Otherwise, the article runs danger to confusing gender and sexuality.
Thank you for guiding me to that reading, as well as the article section. I have added some content on how gender-variant people in Ottoman times were not exclusively homosexual (in our modern understanding), and how the attitudes seem to vary throughout time. Elif Yılmazlı does go into further detail on this, but I am not sure exactly how to re-structure the article as you say. Any further help you could give me on this would be greatly appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:  Passed

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:  Passed

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  Passed b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  Passed

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  Passed

@VenusFeuerFalle:, apologies for my late reply, I hope I have addressed most of your points there. Apologies as I have also been feeling under the weather and have run into time difficulties of my own, so no doubt there are some things I've missed from your suggestions. Please let me know if the edits improve the article, or if there is anything else you would like me to do, and thank you so much for your help and patience throughout the process. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@GnocchiFan Do not worry about being late. Although the instructions estimate a review to not take longer than a week, I am well-aware that it can take longer, especially in January. As you can see, I have less time than expected myself. I appreciate your edits, the article is much better now. I currently have no objections, though I would like to check the remaining sources just to make sure. If the sources are well used, I can see the article passing the GA criteria in a few day.
with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article as it still seemed to perpetuate the myth and misunderstanding that homosexuality was decriminalised. This has been considered a western-centric and colonial view of Ottoman law pre-1858. See: Ozsoy EC. Decolonizing Decriminalization Analyses: Did the Ottomans Decriminalize Homosexuality in 1858? J Homosex. 2021 Oct 15;68(12):1979-2002. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2020.1715142. Epub 2020 Feb 18. PMID: 32069182. DutchManfromtheEast (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution,
some of the edits needed to be reverted. It is not said that Ottomans legalized homosexual practises, therefore, there is also nothing to be "debunked". Similiar issues can be found in the recent changes, especially in the lead section. Please make yourself familiar with MOS:LEAD for further inforation. Since this article is ranked GA, low-effort edits are more likely to be reverted.
with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, I apologise for not following the proper style and procedures. DutchManfromtheEast (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@DutchManfromtheEast I would like to chime in here; more so to offer an additional explanation for your future editing than anything else. The major problem with your edit, in my opinion, was not style necessarily (though MOS:LEAD was an issue); and rather was WP:TONE and WP:NPOV.
The article already included what you wanted to add, at least in some capacity. From the lede:
The 19th-century ushered in transformative changes marked by Westernization; these changes largely stigmatized homosexuality. the 1858 Ottoman Penal Code is a pivotal moment, often cited as signaling private decriminalization. However, previous laws against homosexuality were rarely invoked by the Ottomans, and this liberalization came amid heightening heteronormativity and anxieties about open same-sex expression among men, leading many scholars to question the validity of the 'decriminalization' paradigm used for the Ottoman Empire. (emphasis mine)
One of the 'many scholars' cited in the article is indeed Ozsoy, and their opinion is presented in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Instead of using loaded words like 'myth' or 'misunderstanding', the article talks of shifting and unstable scholarly consensus. There are still many WP:RS claiming that the Ottomans decriminalized homosexuality in 1858 (though by now this is thought of as somewhat outdated); there are also newer challenges to that view arguing instead that homosexuality was largely de facto legal since the very beginnings of the empire, and that the 19th-century actually stigmatized homosexuality. Therefore the article tries to represent shifting academic views, instead of endorsing one conceptualization (or worse, one individual author's conceptualization) in a way that would not be WP:NPOV. Uness232 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)