Talk:LGBT people and Islam

message: As you can see from the quotes I just added, the text reflects the cited RSs. If there are other RSs which state that these quotes don't come from hadith, we need to reflect both these contrasting viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. However, I don't see where the article you linked to refers to that particular saying. If I'm missing something, please quote the relevant passage. Also, I don't see where Rowson identifies henna and perfumed hair with the mukhannathun of early Medina, and if he doesn't, this is also WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a rare hadith, but the second sentence seems to be mistranslated, at least compared to the only variant I'm aware of. The hadith in question can be found in the Arabian Nights with some discussion, and with a partial isnad in Kash al-khafāʾ (hadith no. 2997): "لا تنظروا إلى المردان فإن فيهم لمحة من الحور". Note that the second sentence can be translated as "they have some resemblance [fīhum lamḥa] to the houris", and not "they have eyes more tempting than the houris". Wiqi(55) 03:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, . Nice detective work! I agree that yours is a more likely translation (this idiom can be found in Wehr-Cowan: فيه لمحة من ابيه = he looks like his father), but we can't just declare a RS to be wrong based on our own reading of a primary source. That would violate WP:PRIMARY. We can, I think, list the original with an alternative translation alongside it without violating the policy. Note that most academic scholars are skeptical about the study of isnads, so this hadith could come from anywhere. In fact, the work cited by Semerdian (which I don't access to) is about the Abbasid era, so there's probably no claim about authenticity qua sunnah being made there: Wright, J. W. “Masculine Allusion and the Structure of Satire in Early ‘Abbasid Poetry.” In J. W. Wright and Everett K. Rowson, ed., Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 7. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

text:   It looks like you are misinterpreting what is meant by verification in WP:V. It's about verifying that we're reflecting what's stated in a RS (in this case Semerdian's publications). It is not about verifying whether a RS is correct in the assertions it makes about primary sources. If a RS doesn't identify a hadith it discusses, it is fine to request that additional information using a which tag, but the tags you added there were inappropriate. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith vs sayings 

message: Sodomy is the correct term for anal sex. What is the problem? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is as I wrote in the edit summary. The term "sodomy" is often used in this narrow sense, but that's not the definition given in our own sodomy article that you linked to, or returned by a Google search, or found in Merriam-Webster. It's fine to use "sodomy" in running text, but the first time it's discussed in the article, we need to clarify in what sense it's being used here. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? You are confident that the men of Lot were purely wanting to have anal sex with the angels as opposed to fellatio? Come on, sodomy is fine. The point of the story of Lot is one of sexual violation and abuse of guests - it's not to say that it would have been ok if the angels had given oral sex but drawn the line at anal! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We aren't discussing what the men of Lot wanted to do, but rather how that passage has been interpreted in the Islamic tradition. The RSs cited here state that the condemnation was interpreted in classical commentaries as applying specifically to anal intercourse between men, and not to other activities encompassed by the broader definition of sodomy such as oral sex. See for example, the cited Iranica entry, which uses mainly "sodomy" in the running text, but takes care to make clear what is meant by the term when it first discusses the passage: "Later exegetes and jurists unanimously understood this as referring specifically to anal intercourse between males". Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems somewhat tenuous. We are led to believe that jurists (writing in the centuries following Mohammad) all understood that the men of the city of Lot (which didn't in reality exist anyway) would have wanted to have only anal sex with the angels (which do not in reality exist in any case) if they'd had the chance. Which of course they didn't get? I think you're trying to be very specific in terms of desired sex acts considering we're drawing upon a myth. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying to reflect what's in RSs, in particular the Iranica article I quoted above (by the same author as the EoQ citation), which you can read in full. It seems that you aren't arguing that it isn't reliable, or that I'm not reflecting it correctly, so I don't know how to read this as a policy-based objection. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, apologies. Thinking about this it isn't really your fault. I'm really thinking the religious debate is kind of daft and thus makes it difficult to properly describe in this article. Exegetes and jurists etc who have been influential in this area assume the angels have a gender (male) and then use the story to condemn (attempted or actual) anal sex between men - prompting the question as to whether it would have been perfectly fine if the angels had been women and been anally raped by the men of Lot or if the men had raped the angels but without anal sex. But I digress and agree we just need to reflect the sources at hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodomy 

message: It is incorrect as describing Albania and Kosovo as muslim states with anti-discriminatory laws. They are secular states, and religion does not play any kind of role in regulating the laws of the state. Please do not use the names of this state to further some muslim agenda, which try to incorrectly describe islam as tolerating. It is not, and wherever there is the Islam law, there are no LGBT allowed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.155.234 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that they have a majority muslim population. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosova and Albania are not muslim states, they are secular 

message: Please discuss your wish to remove content, and gather a consensus, before actually editing out content. You must prove why something should be removed, and your peers have to accept that resolution, before you actually remove content that is not obvious vandalism. Also being the tender and controversial subject that LGBT rights are, you cannot just remove information before it's been discussed. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211142044/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/keith-ellison-minnesota-marriage-amendment-fail.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/keith-ellison-minnesota-marriage-amendment-fail.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071318/http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/DIK/langversion_studie_muslim_leben_deutschland.pdf?__blob=publicationFile to http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/DIK/langversion_studie_muslim_leben_deutschland.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603070018/https://revolution-news.com/bosnian-lgbti-activists-demand-equality-now/ to https://revolution-news.com/bosnian-lgbti-activists-demand-equality-now/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906123507/http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm to http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am at a loss to understand why this page has a large section devoted to a master of arts thesis by an otherwise not notable Rusmir Musić, when no third-party sources establish the notability of the thesis and when the only citations are to the thesis itself. There are tens of thousands of MA theses written in universities each year, but few end up being considered notable. Without third-party sources, one cannot consider this one notable. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queer Visions of Islam 

message: It's not right to say the "punishment for homosexual acts" is death. This is the punishment for male anal intercourse, witnessed by four people, listed in the hadith. Because no one is going to witness literal penetration, many scholars (including the Ottoman scholars) do not take this literally. 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the requirements for the punishment are stated correctly in your comment, it's still right I believe to say this. This is like saying: "The punishment of theft is so and so" but the theft should be witnessed or evidenced. This doesn't contradict the fact that the said "so and so" is the punishment for theft. EditMaker Me (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional punishment

message: This difference needs to be enumerated. There is no punishment for lesbianism under Islamic law. Conversely, the "orthodox" punishment for m-m anal intercourse is death. (Though it has almost never been implemented since it is impossible to satisfy the four-witnesses requirement.) 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male homosexuality v lesbianism

message: There seem to be a lot of issues with this article, which I am not in a position to address at the moment, but would like to raise another one: the section on "Modern laws in the Islamic world" has a great deal of overlap with various other articles on LGBT rights by country or territory, Religious views on same-sex marriage and indivdual entries on individual countries. IMO, individual countries need not be named here, and if the information held in this article is pertinent and relevant to that country and is not currently included under its individual entry it could be added there. I would like to see this section pared back to a minimum to avoid needless repetition and risk of out-of-date information remaining here when it has been updated in the main articles on the topic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication with other articles 

message: In the third paragraph, it states "There are also several Muslim organizations that support LGBT rights and LGBT Muslims." kindly mention the aforementioned Muslim organization for transparency and neutrality. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicop33 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , as per WP:LEAD, there is generally no need to provide citations in the lead. The article includes sections on organisations and activists. You have, however, highlighted the fact that the whole lead could probably do with updating as per good practice, and some of the content and citations probably belong in the body of the article. (Please remember to sign you comments with 4 tildes, btw.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of source 

message: I included some further background on where beliefs stem from in the Islamic faith. Both the Qur'an and Hadith, are used to cite discrimination toward the community. However, as times have changed and society is constantly pushing to gain more equality for everyone, people in the Islamic community continue to challenge the discrimination. The Islamic Society of North America, in 2013, established their approval of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ensuring that people are not discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Additionally, there have been the rise of Unity Mosques, which are inclusive of the LGBTQ community across the United States and in Canada. Laurapollack (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems with this addition. First, the lead should be a high level summary of the article. Some of the more specific background information you added is already covered in the body of the article, and general information about Islam is better suited for a more general article. Also, the sources you used, an OpEd and an advocacy organization website, should generally only be used as reliable sources for the opinion of the author (i.e., with attribution) and not to source statements of fact. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBTQ in Islam evolution of beliefs 

message: While reading through and editing this page, I noticed that there is a lack of recent events from news outlets. I have added some myself but believe there is still a need for them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahScafati (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Recent Events 

message: I added a relevant fact about Egypt's criminalization of homosexuality:
"An Egyptian tv host was recently sentenced to a year in prison for interviewing a gay man in January 2019. [121]"
This addition shows the overall negative social attitudes towards homosexuality and the extremes that the Government take it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkuflik (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Punishment in Egypt 

message: Hi Wiki-editors, I re-added the summary chart at the bottom of the page. I was working on this page as a assigned project for my class. I notice someone is keep removing it. I have a request that this is not a medical topic and I tried to added as many as countries possible on the table after doing the enough research. To me this chart was very useful for the information as you can see more than one country at one chart instead of going back and forth for the information. I put it up there to benefit my other readers as well. Requesting again, please let it be there, I appreciate your understanding in advance. Thank you!Shahzia Perveen (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your table, Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. We can't accept material just because we have faith that it is correct. This is true whether or not it is a medical topic. Is the chart even based on references in this article? I remember looking and finding that at least some of it was not discussed in this article. It might be okay if it were immediately next to a section that contained the same information in prose and that prose was fully referenced; however that is not yet what we have here. You definitely should not edit war by attempting to re-add the chart twice unchanged. , any thoughts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Something else to take in mind when it comes to tables - they aren't always the best avenue to impart information, as it is so easy for these to be imprecise because it's limited in how much information that can be imparted. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student editor's summary table 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I am seeking attention about these two photos, I think the writings are enough to understand the matter, and the depiction is not further needed to add here because it does not enhance the encyclopedic quality, and if that according to WP:GRATUITOUS, images which can be offensive or vulgar to any viewer are not allowed to be added in wikipedia. Or if dont, the photos should be kept as collapsible at least. Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article and the fundamental rules of muslims is to protect their gaze, it is more important in Islam than depicting Muhammad (modestly), and the article should at least make the photos as collapsed so that wikipedia does not seem to force viewer to see the photos, by giving them option. 43.245.120.33 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not in the business to protect anyone's claimed morals. That's a slippery slope. You are free to avert your eyes from that which you do not wish to see, same as I might from other things I wish not to see. The specific images in question are each the only illustration for their adjacent content text. They are not purely decorative, but instead literally illustrate the specific topics. They provide authentic, contemporaneous evidence that this stuff you find icky was and is factually happening and was important enough that many people wrote and drew about it. It should be a surprise to nobody, and instead is clearly on-topic, that an article about "LGBT in Islam" would have images of an LBGT nature specifically in the context of Islam. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But parsian, ottoman or any other culture are not the mirror of basic Islam, the basic Islam is based on quran, hadith, the life of muhammad, his companions and his four generation followers, which are called salaf, the latter muslims are not any religious reference of Islam, whoever they are, so it cen be placed in ottoman or persian empire related article, not in an article, where the main topic is Islam. At least you can collapse the photos, so that one will click the show option who wish to see by his own will, he will then not be bound to see the photos by first indroduction with this article, and wiki will not be liable of making them bound to see these photos by giving them both options, and if they see it by their own wish, then wiki will also not be liable of it. 103.67.159.137 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sections have text specifically about the Ottomans. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I will still request not to delete but to collapse the photos to make the article universally tolerable and more easily worthy of taking information kind to all, like which i did above or equally of better syntax than that (which more precisely fits in the page with adequate space). Isn't it bad that if a huge number of people becomes abstained of having knowledge of this article only for fear of this two photos always being opened up in front of their eyes when the intentionally or unintentionally open this page? 43.245.121.38 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is against WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a formal Wikipedia policy. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

text: "Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article..." No, there is no guarantee that mostly Muslims will want to read this article. Non-Muslims wanting to know about the topic may want to view the article. And even if most of the article readers are Muslims, that is not sufficient or good enough reason for censorship. --50.30.178.10 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus about two images

message: Sara hegazy was not a Muslim but an Atheist Nlivataye (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have been looking and trying to find information that would backup your claim, I have found none. Where is it stated that she was an Atheist? In this video of her, when saying, "..and you took off the hijab.." she seems to be implying she was Muslim. glowing regards, paperandscissors (contact) 06:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sara Hegazy 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Putting this stuff here makes as much sense as putting Rape, sexual slavery and child molestation at Heterosexuality. -Daveout(talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bacha bazi" is out of scope

message: These phrases seem to push POV. Evidently the governments of the countries in question do not believe the cards are "wrong". Equinox ◑ 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "incorrect identity cards", "wrong identity cards" 

message: The article cites Scott as some sort of authority that is qualified to argue for a different interpretation of the story of the people of Prophet Lot, Prayers of God be upon him.
There is a huge difference between a "research scholar" and Muslim Scholar. Not anyone who claims to be a scholar is automatically granted or accepted as such. There are strict qualifications, including but not limited to peer acceptance and testimony by other established Muslim scholars. Scott is no such person, not even close.
He has absolutely no qualifications, nor do his opinions carry any weight in this matter. We have strict unanimous consensus among scholars of Islam since the beginning of Islam that homosexual acts are prohibited, and that the story of the people of Prophet Lot, Peace be upon him, clearly indicates this. Not just in the Quran, but the many authentic Hadiths as well. To attempt to deny and "reinterpret" those Ayat and Hadiths is bending and denying logic and authenticity, not to mention clear language and consensus.
Scott is not a Muslim scholar ('alim or Faqeeh). A Faqeeh is someone who has deep and intricate knowledge of Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence), and has qualifications to deduce rulings or issue fatwas on certain topics.
It is very well established among even beginner students of Islamic knowledge that we have something called in Islam (known in the religion by necessity - معلوم من الدين بالضرورة). These are axiomatic givens that have no room for interpretation, such as the prohibition of intoxicating drinks, the prohibition of pork, the requirement of Salah, Fasting, and Hajj for Muslims, prohibition of fornication and adultery, and so on. Homosexual acts fall under this category, and hence no Muslim scholar would ever argue or attempt to come up with a different "interpretation" for its prohibition. Insisting to do so after explaining the truth and crystal clear evidence of the matter, and that it is not open for interpretation may very well render that person outside the folds of Islam if he has any semblance of mental sanity.
My strong recommendation is to remove Scott's reference from the article. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslims do not have dominion to declare who is or is not a scholar of their religion. Wikipedia is a scholarly project not a religous one. It is never bound by what a religion wants or thinks about itself, but instead generally goes by external/independent sources. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we do. It's the same with any governing agency or entity. Can someone decide to call himself the president of the United States and expect people to accept that? Or can someone claim to be a scientist without credentials and expect that his views carry any weight? There needs to be acceptance from peers as well as a lineage of scholarly education and qualifications. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. So we need for example someone on faculty at a college or university who specializes in a certain field, who has published books or journal articles...evidence that they are generally known for scholarship in that field. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Kugle is a tenured Islamic Studies professor at Emory University. End of debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not a scholar of Islam, big difference, not end of debate. He literally invented new things not found in the tradition to appease his desires. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am certainly appeased. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Just being employed by a university does not give one credentials to talk about a subject matter when it lies outside their domain. This is very obvious. Scott is not a scholar of Islam. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a tenured professor of Islamic Studies. Those are tangible credentials here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside observer here: Then why not use that terminology in the article itself? It appears that "Islamic scholar" also has a different meaning within the religion of Islam itself. If you say "Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, a professor of Islamic studies at ___, claims..." you not only avoid ambiguity but give more information on why he is a valid source. — trlkly 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If that's what it takes to eliminate the confusion. That's clarified now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle is not a Muslim Scholar 

message: but modern Western historians have concluded that the Islamic prophet Muhammad never forbade homosexual relationships outright
IS WRONG! That is simply and utterly false. There is a hadith by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Ibn 'Abbas said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1456; Abu Dawud, 4462; Ibn Majah, 2561. This hadith was classed as sahih by Shaykh al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami’, no. 6589)
It is clearly forbidden. Please change this information if you truly want to publish only facts. 39.36.173.70 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to simply remove this line, it is not only wrong but also irrelevant to the article 39.36.173.70 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The personal interpretations or opinions of editors are not relevant to the article; Wikipedia reports what others have written or said, not what its editors think. See also WP:SOAPBOX. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong citation on 29 April 2023 

message: Every single citation in this page is a non authority on Islam but simply personal opinions. Islam forbad homosexuality because Allah simply forbad it and it is very clearly stated in the Quran and Hadith. Obviously the people responsible for this misinformation don’t care about the truth but only their personal agenda. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Prophet Mohammad did not forbid the action of homosexuality. First it is Allah that forbids not Prophet Mohammad . He is a messenger of Allah, he obeys Allah’s commands which clearly says in the Quran that sodomy is a a sin that deserved Allah’s punishment of the people of Sodom! 65.95.226.52 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Quran and Hadith" The Quran is not a reliable source for Islam, as it has no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we need "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Dimadick (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  All citations are of non authority in Islam only personal opinions.  

message: We have a section dedicated to the history of homosexuality. LGBT is also about trans people who are not necessarily gay (even if we consider people by their gender assigend at birth). I feel like there is some undue weight. Maybe we can add a transgender history section, if sufficient material is available, or trim the homosexuality section? Especially since other sections also treat the issue of homosexuality and anal intercourse in much detail. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that rather depend on the transgender history that's available? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender history