Talk:LGBT/Archive 1

message: This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered".  My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some debate over that, but as far as I can see, transgender was originaly coined as both noun and adjective, same as with transsexual. (Ever heard "transsexualed"? Me neither.) Transgendered has become more common only in the past few years, and is still behind on Google count. I personally can't stand it ;-) AlexR 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: GLAAD says in its media guide 'The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word.' and I agree. I researched this and asked around years ago and found "transgender" to be the correct spelling. tdempsey 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender or Transgendered? 

message: I've removed the reference to Eli Manning in the list of famous LGBT people for lack of proof (wishful thinking, someone?).
Feel free to put it back if you can provide some sort of documentation.  Pinball22 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eli Manning 

message: Is anyone up for cleaning the LGBT category? It needs major work and I am interested in starting now.
tdempsey 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - I have found the projects and discussions including Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. tdempsey 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: The Wikipedia:LGBT notice board has already discussed this on numerous occasions. Wikipedia does not do separate articles for each possible permutation of the queer community's group acronym; we have one article at LGBT, and all alternative orders of the letters redirect to that. If you don't like it, you can always propose that we move LGBT to a more inclusive title, but there will still only be one article, with all other acronyms redirecting to that one. The LGBT article does already discuss the use of extended acronyms and the variable order of the letters. Bearcat 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GLBTQQIA]] merge notice 

message: This article as it currently stands could use some more on the current and historical relationships with other groups that cover similar, or overlapping ground.  For example, the interests of lesbian feminism clearly overlap at least in part with those of the LGBT movement, and in some cases people simultaneously identify with both, but there is a complex and often controversial relationship there.  In addition, queer theory is sometimes taken to be an important theoretical underpinning, but that's also controversial.  (I'm not adding anything myself because I only know of the relationships; I don't know much detail about them.) --Delirium 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationship to other groups 

message: This article seems to apply mainly to North America, and to a much lesser extent some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. Can anyone expand it with a more global view? Da Masta 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical scope 

message: :PubMed is showing:
:* LGBT 45 
:* GLBT 17 
Librarians also favour LGBT: 
(es_uomikim 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PubMed and libraries 

message: Lets look at it another way besides most and least common. I would argue the GL(B) is an older configuration and that more people and organizations are moving towards LGBT. Here's my approximate timeline:
# Gay and lesbian
# Gay, lesbian, and bisexual
# GLB
# LGB
# LGBT
# etc
Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old vs new? 

message: I think the most common version you see in Australia these days is GLBTI, but that may just be ignorance of lesbian publications!  It has one advantage over LGBTI - you can pronounce it .  You do occasionally see GLBTIQ as well.
Realistically I think these usages are going to vary widely and won’t necessarily follow any neo-Darwinian trajectory towards ultimate correctness as hinted at above.  Life’s generally messier than that.
Queer still retains its Queer-Nation-ish meaning in some circles here, but in the gay press I wonder if it means anything more than gay sometimes.   ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: I'm considering the inclusion of examples in the article, such as the description used by the Triangle Program of Toronto, which bills itself as "Canada's only classroom for LGBTTI2QQAP youth." I don't know whether such examples merit their own section, should exist only as footnote references, or should not be included at all. 72.244.207.209 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: "The broad spectrum of LGBT groups has been expanded further in many cases, recently a resident of Manchester, Joe Parrott, has started an LGBT online gaming network that has proven very popular since its creation in 2009. The group joins together players of Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft and primarily Dark Age of Camelot, and has monthly meetings at Gay venues across the north."
This would seem to belong more properly to LGBT organizations, if it is notable enough for inclusion. Eponymous (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: I put "or GLBT" in because that's what usually happened in articles with alternative names. The reason for the last removal was "fixing template on page" which I don't understand. Why shouldn't it say "or GLBT"? Short life (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT or GLBT is an initialism.... 

message: There is now a new variant, "LGBTQI2-S", translating as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queer/intersexed/2-spirited. gsearch gives only 27 uses, but a main use is at the Homelessness Resource Center, and is used at a site run by "A program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services" . I think this should be mentioned. (but this is getting somewhat ridiculous)(Mercurywoodrose)76.245.45.179 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous homosexuality is put in the same category as transgenderism and intersexuality. This is extremely bigoted and anti-homosexual. It's saying if you're homosexual, you're necessarily gender-atypical. What could be more bigoted than that? The Right says homosexual men are not moral men; the Left says homosexual men are not real men. What's the point of giving me my dignity as a person only to deny me my dignity as a man? Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"? 75.132.142.26 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Left says homosexual men are not real men." I stopped here. You mad? Most of left is feminist and most of branches of Feminism says that gender roles are a social construction i.e. there is not "real men" and "real women" and there is not something that is more "masculine" and something that is more "feminine" in all cultures across History and world, every human being is what they really are. You seem to have a heterosexist point of view towards our transgender brothers/sisters/what-they-are-and-want-to-be-called. Lguipontes (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I know you're in 99% of probability an anonymous troll but anyway... >Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"?< Do you want my opinion as a bisexual who fell in love with another boy at his first time when he was 7 years old (IQ says I'm almost genius)? Fuck what people think (actually, this one have to be the maximum in the heart and in the mind of every sane and self-loving non-heterosexual in a blatantly and violently heterosexist culture). In Brazil, where I live, if everybody had knowledge about sexual orientations as science demonstrates it in your society (biologically motivated), millions of homophobes would shut up. From religious to far right. Millions of homophobes could never have existed, from bullies who make little boys kill themselves to white power skinheads. In the hearts of all confuse parents, truth, hope and deep love could persevere instead of really sad hate and denial feelings that leads some to honor killings and other to physical and psychological abuse. Yeah, Science can prove that we're here since Upper Paleolithic, 9000 years before Bible (and some parts of History too, Portuguese wrote about Indigenous Brazilian "profanely and alarmingly common sodomy"). But it has to become mainstream there, to get notice here and help 8-11% (we are that numerous, I suppose) of our 200 million inhabitants. No, more than that, because the entire Latin American reality is more or less the same. Stronger conservative christianity (and if you ask me, more hypocritical, the way that only some of you native Anglophones can see) is not very helpful, they deny everything by the "gay agenda" myth and other ridiculous stereotypes. There are Christian public figures who are used to compare non-heterosexual acceptance to ten steps toward bestiality and pedophilia acceptance. As you can see, "choice of lifestyle" leads to 387982738928920387290020092373209302378 more social and psychological damage than "congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion" as consensus. I dream everyday with the latter. Lguipontes (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  someday perhaps categories won't be needed for anyone AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: put them in alpha order, to be fair, you get biglqt or "big loquat". is this significant?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Variant

message: This website should be removed from the external links - * GayLGBT.com
There is no real content.
Instead a good growing UK resource would be * LGBT.co.uk
87.114.234.161 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - I have removed the excessive links per WP:ELNO. Most of the links did not add information that couldn't be covered in the article. Others were broad, unfocused collections of non-encyclopedic information; DMOZ directory is very 1995; a single student organization; a non-authoritative Power Point presentation, etc. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I've also declined to add the link that you recommendedit seems to be a news aggregator/blog, of which there are many, many on the web. If we are going to add such a site, there should be a discussion and we should choose the one with the best editorial oversight and meaningful content. - MrX 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 February 2013 

message: I don't edit wikipedia enough to be allowed to add an edit directly to the page. I think that GSRM should be included with GSM as an initialism that additionally includes people with diverse relationship structures. There are descriptions of the term at Queer@UofM and FTM transcribed Therunaround (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GSRM 

message: This unusual abbreviation (not one I have come across before, and certainly not one in common usage) appears in the 'Variants' section of the article:
"MSM" (er.g. [sic] "men who have sex with men").
Could the editors please review its use, and amend as appropriate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeybear (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "er.g." 

message: Currently, solosexuality automatically redirects to autoeroticism. I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that there is a difference between the two, since the latter appears to refer specifically to physical acts, whereas "solosexuality" sounds somewhat similar to asexuality, i.e. as a way of life including feelings, self-sufficiency, etc, and should perhaps therefore be included in the scope of LGBT topics, as well a in the LGBT symbols, etc. (Leading on from this, then, a new solosexuality article should perhaps be created...?) BigSteve (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solosexuality 

message: The GSD initialism is not common so I feel it shouldn't be in the lead or bolded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GSD is not common 

message: I am new at editing and was hoping for some help from someone more advanced. I found a dead link for ref #43:  
Smith, S. E. (17 September 2010). "Separate But Equal Is Still Unequal". Retrieved 2010-11-27.  
Could someone help provide a new reference here? Thanks. JLand13 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: In the very first sentence of the article there is a punctuation error. There should be no comma between bisexual and transgender. That's how it is now. A screenshot with the error. 178.94.102.44 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: - Serial commas are allowed (see MOS:SERIAL), as long as they are used consistently in the article.- MrX 00:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (the very 1st sentence of the article) 

message: I'm curious as to why the "Q" in the acronym is left out, both in the title and in the article. I don't really see why it wouldn't be there. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasoning behind this? GoGatorMeds (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: GoGatorMeds, there is no Q, as in LGBTQ, because of the WP:Common name policy. "LGBT" is the WP:Common name for this topic, and so the article title should be at that title. Significant alternative titles should be mentioned in the WP:Lead (introduction), and/or in a section lower in the article, per the WP:Alternative title policy, and that is what the article does. The "Q" is in the lead, and lower in the article, along with other variants. What should also be in the lead (and bolded there) is "GLBT," since that is the second most common title for this topic (as noted lower in the article). It was removed twice from the lead in 2012 when an IP attempted to add it, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, thank you for clearing that confusion up for me. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: GoGatorMeds, you're not new to editing Wikipedia, are you? Looking at your contributions, you are familiar to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not, I think that I have heard the acronym with the Q more often than not, personally, which is why I was originally confused. But now that I know that is merely a personal experience, and it's more widely used among the general public without the Q, I understand why it is used this way on the page. Thank you again.GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no Q? 

message: Dear esteemed members of the Wikipedia community, acronyms are abbreviations you can pronounce like a word (NATO, UNESCO). LGBT certainly doesn't come into this category so "acronym" should be changed to "abbreviation" throughout. You wouldn't want the Encyclopaedia Britannica people coming in and laughing! Many thanks. 95.172.64.57 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct (m-w definition here). I'll fix it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't mind the changes made in this regard (concerning acronyms vs. initialisms), the Acronym article (which includes WP:Reliable sources) is clear that we don't have to be strict on this matter. It's also why initialism currently redirects to the Acronym article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronym or abbreviation 

message: Why not? If heterosexuals (what a weird word) want to be part 
of everybody ... why not. I'd like to be included as an h.
Benvhoff (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia contains no new ideas: everything in this article should be based on reliable sources to show the information is verifiable and true. If there are any reliable sources you can cite that use "h" for "heterosexual" somewhere in an acronym, please feel free to add the information to the article (with references). However, if there aren't any, we cannot include this in the article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Additionally, heterosexuals are included in the acronym, as "a" can also stand for "(straight) allies". (Although this has been controversial in the asexual community as it is sometimes considered asexual erasure, but here isn't the place to discuss that...) This is mentioned in the article ("Variants" section), as it is used in reliable sources. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add H for heterosexual 

message: Under the controversy section, it definitely should be brought up that the inclusion of "A for Allies" is pretty frowned upon, especially because it ends up erasing the A being for Asexual and also because while allies are allies of the community, they are not outright members. It is something that some groups do use in their abbreviations but it's definitely garnered some criticism. That said, there are a fair few people who are in favor of keeping it I just think it should be mentioned. Just google the topic and plenty of stuff comes up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.142 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to go by what reliable sources say. According to sources, A can stand for either ally or asexual. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Although I totally understand the criticism of allies being under the "a" (and agree with it, personally), there seems to be no reliable sources discussing the issue, therefore including it would be WP:ADVOCACY. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "A for Allies"

message: Surely these less commonly used terms can be moved further down in the article? Zumoarirodoka (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to moving things down, be sure that you are not repeating things that are already covered lower. LGBTIH (used in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture), GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities") and GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) are already covered lower. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It still seems odd to have these terms in the lead section, anyhow. I have now removed them, if anyone has any objections to the changes I have made, please let me know. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initialisms "LGBTIH", "GS(R)M" and "GSD" in lead 

message: , hours ago, I saw your removal of this link from the WP:See also section, but I waited to see if anyone would revert you and/or object to the removal at this talk page. I don't understand your removal of that link. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a lot of "Homophobia in FOOBAR" articles... why only link that one? EvergreenFir (talk) Please  16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the link to the See also section as Racism in the LGBT community was also linked. However, I have no objection to this removal, as the See also section does seem somewhat overcrowded. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Umm... I guess we already have a similar article in the LGBT Rights Opposition page that is also linked, so part of my reason was to avoid redundancy.Tenor12 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it's worth inclusion in the see also section, given how crowded that section already is. One of these days, I might have a go at incorporating some of those links into the article. ~ RobTalk 03:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Homophobia in ethnic minority communities]] link 

message: In the section called "Variants", the sexuality, "panssexual" should be spelled "pansexual".
The sentence is, "The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual)..."
Tyleroakleyyye (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ~ RobTalk 18:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140802233731/http://www.health.gov.au/lgbtistrategy to http://www.health.gov.au/lgbtistrategy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927113556/http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/anti_gay.html to http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/anti_gay.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes reviewed by  at 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So... why are there no mentions of aromantics and agenders at all, even though the A applies to them as much as it does to asexuals?
198.161.51.70 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources typically don't include aromantic or agender when defining the A, unfortunately. We go by what those sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  16:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "A" stands for... 

message: :the initialism LGB, which itself started replacing the term gay when in reference to the LGBT community
Should we say this for sure? While I can buy that trans people got called gay, I'm not sure I buy that the LGB community accepted trans prior to this being reflected in the addition of T to the initialism.
The cited ref:
:Acronyms, initialisms & abbreviations dictionary, Volume 1, Part 1. Gale Research Co., 1985, . Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989
Does it specifically say this about trans?
Perhaps we should link LGB community until there is proof and do a redirect to pre-trans history. 64.228.90.87 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 1985 trans inclusion

message: Last sentence in lede:"Whether or not LGBT people openly identify themselves may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment, as well as on the status of LGBT rights where they live." is rubbish. An individual's decision to "openly identify" depends on all sorts of things. HOW is it useful to claim it "may depend" on [where they live]? It may depend on their parents attitude, their bosses attitude, their job, their goals, their confidence, or whether identifying would put them in significant physical risk. The lede is pretty poorly written; for instance it's claimed that the "initialism is intended..." which is more nonsense. What is being claimed ? that anyone using the phrase intends to emphasize such-and-such? That it just not true. LGBT refers to a category of people, communities, groups, organizations, or political, medical, economic, entertainment, recreational, etc. etc. issues or interests or places. In my opionion, it would be better to mention whether or not a LGBT community usually exists when the social/cultural/legal environment is agreeable and in how much of the world is there "strong" cultural, economic, institutional, or legal discrimination against LGBT peoples. It would be useful to mention the number of countries that make LGBT (sexual, dress) behavior illegal.72.172.10.197 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of little value in the lede should be removed. 

message: Not all who include the I are intersex themselves or even advocates but prefer to be more inclusive. The sentence can be shortened as follows:
The article says:
Some intersex people who want to be included in LGBT groups suggest an extended initialism LGBTI
It should say: 
Those who wish to include intersex people use LGBTI.
Dayaware (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cannolis (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015 

message: Several times now I've tried to remove a superfluous statement. It's the second sentence about what some, unnamed Roman Catholic commentators think.
In response to years of lobbying from users and LGBT groups to eliminate discrimination, the online social networking service Facebook, in February 2014, widened its choice of gender variants for users. However, this decision was criticized by various Roman Catholic commentators.
There is zero evidence Roman Catholic commentators are experts in the history or nomenclature of LGBT or LGBT culture. Who cares what they think? The Facebook decision was lauded by countless named authorities and commentators across a religious spectrum yet we don't include their opinions. There is no reason to include the second sentence but I'm sick of dealing with one editor to get it removed and they are unwilling to defend its inclusion besides that it has been there a while.
Please remove it to improve the article. Dayaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayaware (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 November 2015
:I completely agree that adding Roman Catholic criticism specifically gives undue weight to that viewpoint and it always struck me as odd as to why so many editors appeared to be in favour of its inclusion in the past. However, considering the opposition this move received from anti-LGBT commentators of all faiths, I think personally that a sentence should be included for criticism. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence to be removed  

message: 96.2.246.83 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016 

message: I just thought I'd throw out a suggestion to link this page in some way to the LGBT ageing page--perhaps just via the "see also" section?  As a person with a (now-deceased) elderly, estranged lesbian relative who ended up moving across the country to escape (the worst) bigotry, I thought this was a useful topic/resource to link to, perhaps. :) Thanks. Indubitablydoubtful (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest link to LGBT aging page 

message: What is the appropriate acronym to be used? Is it GLBT or LGBT? This is an organization which promotes sexual equality among persons of varying sexual orientations or life-styles. The term “Gay Rights” is more pure to the notion of equal acceptance and tolerance of persons with differing sexual orientations than “Lesbianism.” The notion of “Lesbianism” encompasses a wide range of political beliefs ranging from equal acceptance of homosexuality in society (which most reasonable people support) to the promotion of lesbian over all other forms of sexual relationships. There is considerable conflict between many tenets of Lesbianism and other groups of the GLBT movement. For instance Lesbianism often adopts a radical feminist conception of gender. This view holds that gender is entirely socially constructed. The very existence of transsexuals conflicts with this holding. In 2000 the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a pro-Lesbianism and feminist organization, successfully sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the society discriminated against a transsexual female (See Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society).
On the other hand, gay men have not been known to be political active in areas of gender segregation, extreme misogyny or hostility toward transsexual individuals. Traditionally the acronym has been GLBT. The GLBT movement was focused on the acceptance of sexual diversity. Other political interests should not be subsumed by the GLBT movement, lest the hostilities toward those extrinsic political ideologies hinder the otherwise legitimate and widely supported movement toward sexual diversity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses "LGBT" rather than "GLBT" because "LGBT" is the more common form, not for any ideological reason.  With regard to the above, most people who identify as lesbians are not involved in any kind of "lesbianism movement".  It's just the most common English term for homosexual women. --Alynna (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any sources suggesting LGBT is more common?  While I've heard both, GLBT is more common where I live (and in Google results). --50.131.152.251 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  I noticed the same thing on the Google Battle engine (not scientific, but an effective measure of commonality), with 14 million for GLBT versus under a million for LBGT.  Should there be mention of the origin of the letter ordering perhaps and how it switched?  http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=glbt+&domain2=lbgt&submit=Go%21 161.7.94.136 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Should your proposed acronym gain enough traction to be notable, it can be added to Wikipedia. --Alynna (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Acronym?

message: Call me nit-picky, but I came across a phrase in the History section that is a bit POV: "..the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion." This sounds as though it is a quote that needs textual attribution, which is why I declined to make any corrections myself, but what I do know is that the article should not make such judgments on its own. Mrathel (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Wording Issue

message: This appears to be the term the CBC is going with these days, as well as the term Justin Trudeau is using.  I just added a DAB to here from LGBTQ2.  I'm nothing like a subject expert—could someone add an appropriately sourced mention to the article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBTQ2 

message: Shouldn't something like LGB be its own article? Before the 90s the initialism existed without the T and the community wasn't necessarily accepting of transgender individuals. I think that deserves its own article. We may well see this moved to LGBTQ in a decade and similarly, LGBT's existence without the Q should get its own discussion. Ranze (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:Content fork, no, it shouldn't be its own article, and I do not see how it would work to have both a LGB ad LGBT article. We usually do not split articles because of an alternative name that the topic has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Split earlier incarnations

message: Hello, I am a student and I plan to soon start working on creating an article entitled "domestic violence in same-sex relationships." I believe this article fits under the interests of this group, and I would be very open to any suggestions or help in creating and bettering the article. Kmwebber (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article

message: Trankuility, regarding this and this, it's just that I find the recently added content somewhat off-topic. I am all for adding information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category, but that's not what you added. And we do have a "Criticism of the term" section for including information about why some people disagree with being categorized as LGBT; so the article doesn't simply state "some agree and some don't."
But again, I'm not going to remove what you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, looking at the previous text, I see that you did add information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category. I thought that was already in the article (some of it was). For that section, what I question is the inclusion of the content that comes after it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. To summarize as I see it, this is not an issue of some people arguing against being categorized as LGBT, it is an issue of many of those people not being LGBT in the first place. It is analogous to discussions that contrast LGB and LGBT. Incidentslly, statements on LGB and on transgender inclusion in LGBT would benefit with being consolidated. Some of this appears in the section on variants, other parts of that debate are in the section on criticism. Trankuility (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that the Variants section (and its subsections) should simply be about variants, and the "Criticism of the term" section should be about, well, criticism of the term (how the term is applied, who it is applied to, etc.). As for intersex people not being LGBT, I understand what you mean, but some intersex people identify as LGBT; they include themselves as part of the LGBT community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, some intersex people are included in LGBT, in the same way that those trans people who are also LGB are included in LGB. Trankuility (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: [ WP:Edit conflict ]: The Transgender inclusion section is only about variants at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that splitting variants from discussion of rationales (criticism) of those variants is helpful. But I'm not going to change any other sections without consensus. Trankuility (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: [Another edit conflict]: Trankuility, do you have any sources about heterosexual intersex people identifying as LGBT? Years ago, I remember reading one or more sources stating that some intersex people identify as being part of the LGBT community regardless of their sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no such sources about heterosexual, non-transgender intersex people identifying as LGBT, sorry. This is partly why the new material is relevant to this page. It is possible such people existed, though the existence of a larger intersex movement and the establishment of LGBTI may have changed expectations. Trankuility (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional intersex material 

message: I saw this in one of the advice columns and created a redirect, though I was not able to find what it meant.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is LGBTQO? 

message: I am teaching Politics of Gender and Sexuality through Wiki Edu and would like edit access for this page for classroom demonstration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosterbur (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity to edit request 11 November 2016 

message: As the article stands, the sources given say that the acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism", however, I'm just questioning the "flexual" label. Do they mean a "flexible" sexuality instead (i.e. heteroflexible/homoflexible)? And should the wording in this sentence of the article be changed to reflect that difference? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's been almost a month and I've had no reply to this, I've stuck a  tag over "flexual", as the article does not clarify what "flexual" means, as it stands. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I haven't got a clue what "flexual" means... – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't really want an acronym referring to the LGBTQIAP+ community with "f," "a," and "g" right next to each other.Tenor12 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was exactly what I was thinking. (On an unrelated note, you use the same abbreviation I use for the non-heterosexual community!) NeutralWikipedia (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" acronym meaning: Thoughts? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LGBT. 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/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf
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) 00:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am part of the Lgbt community, and i would like to add some content to this page. will you allow me to do that DanDaMan13 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017 

message: Include the initialism "LGBTQA" in the list, the "A" added to include Asexuals. CBurrows (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which list do you mean? RivertorchFIREWATER 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: The section LGBT#Other_variants includes discussion of possible "A"  inclusion but the article defines LGBT, Not all possible variants of LGBT+.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017 

message: The map shows incorrect information and colour on the LGBT rights maps both China and Lithuania doesn't have Laws restricting freedom of expression and association. 
China : The laws in china Censored any sexual behaviour on web or TVs , chinafilminsider.com/china-tightens-censorship-of-online-dramas/  2.) according to the national law in China there's no LAW in  restricting LGBT freedom of expression in public. 
Lithuania : in mid-May, Lithuania’s foreign minister announced that his government had granted visas to two Chechens who “suffered persecution because of their sexual orientation.” And last week, Joël Deumier, president of the French gay rights group SOS Homophobie, said a Chechen refugee had arrived in France.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/chechnya-gays-refugees.html
There is no way that Lithuania has law restricting LGBT freedom of expression, especially Lithuania is part of the European Union. 
Please can someone change the colour of both countries, this is Misleading people who read the LGBT rights page. 
Thank you 
So how is this Jadeadam731724 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no map associated with this article, as far as I can see. I think you may be referring to the map at LGBT rights by country or territory. If so, you could bring it up at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory, particularly if you find any erroneous information in Lithuania's entry there. The image itself is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, so it's probably best to request changes to the image at . Be prepared to cite reliable sources if you're requesting a change (you may find some helpful sources at LGBT rights in Lithuania), and note the 2014 thread about Lithuania on that Commons talk page. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT China and Lithuania on the LGBT rights map  

message: I cannot fing the word "quing" in the article, yet it is redirected here. What am I missing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone comes up with something viable soon, such as the word being added (sourced) to the article, I'll nominate the redirect for deletion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Supported.  You're not missing anything (except maybe the website www.quing.eu, which makes this a one-off term with no general, or even minority, usage).  The redirect should be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Quing

message: Why does this initialism redirect here? I can find nothing in this article which helps clarify what it means. Walkersam (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary for its creation has the meaning, and a google search immediately turns it up as well, but this is the wrong target article for it. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  QTPOC 

message: I can't find any mentions of the commonly used '+' part of the acronym. Should this be added, or is there a reason that it is not included? Inkybinky3 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBTQ+

message: What a fucking moronic sentence. Fix it.80.146.191.154 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I fucking fixed it. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And I fucking improved it.  (IP actually deserves credit for the catch, if not for the manner of reporting it, .  )  Could still use further improvement, particularly in finding a solid reference.  Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The term is used also in some other countries, particularly those which languages use the initialism, such as Argentina, France, and Turkey." 

message: QUILTBAG acronym—incomplete definition. The reason for this edit should be obvious. 
Please change:
"There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)."
to:
"There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." ADKINSKB (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per the source listed:  nihlus kryik (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017 

message: Section needs to be edited, right? There are a lot of community disagreements about whether or not asexual and intersex people are inherently LGBT, with members of those communities sometimes asking to be excluded. Especially wrt intersex people, who feel that biology should not coerce them into identifying as trans. Here's a source This page should be updated to reflect the disagreement around those issues, rather than just assume inclusion. Apremonition (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What specific wording changes would you propose? RivertorchFIREWATER 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Apremonition, see Intersex inclusion section that comes right before the "Other variants" section. Disagreement about intersex inclusion is there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "other variants" section 

message: Student 1: Bryannie Bach
* Lead section: concise, detailed, broad 
* Clear section: great outline, especially inserting the critism towards the end, yet still including other terms 
* Balance coverage: great usuage of information 
* Neutral content: neautral, while providing evidence to backup information 
* Reliable sources: some links were linked to other Wikipedia articles, which I am not sure if it is reliable if the third parties sources are not reliable
* Strengths: images add to the article
* Weaknesses: expand more on the Variants section (the subcategories) 
Bryanniebach (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryanniebach, I see that you are a WP:Student editor. Do you plan on editing the article? As for your review, what links are linked to other Wikipedia articles? I take it that you don't mean wikilinks. Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources on Wikipedia; they are not WP:Reliable sources. As for expanding the Variants section, what do you mean? Do you simply mean adding more variants, even though there are more than enough already, or do you mean adding context and other information that doesn't consist of more variants? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer's Edit

message: Why is this the description of LGBT??? 
Somepersonwholivesinahouse (talk) 6:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to be more specific EvergreenFir (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The description of the article: (genero filisofico sobre cuestiones de la existencia humana) is very confusing

message: The lead section does show the importance of the topic, then goes right into the history. I do see how this is a history article, but the view is skewed slightly positively and does address people who have disagreed on the topic. The sections are very well balanced, giving a little more length to the history, and less to the other sections explaining is a great way to organize. I do think that there are a lot of quotes in the article that could instead be summarized. Maybe combining the Other Variants section with the Alternative Terms section would allow for expansion in this category. I would also like to see how this term differs around the world and when it sparked up, since others on the Talk page have been discussing how it is used as a different variation in Canada.
Terir (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: This photo (officially released by US Navy) shows two lesbian females belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in LGBT article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of LGBT, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by LGBT can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.196.137 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly short article about a broad topic, and I'm not sure where it would go or that it would be an especially apt illustration. For the record, you've requested the same image be added to Lesbian. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Since this article is a term article, I don't see a need for the image at this particular article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Flyer's comments about the LGBT article. You could try asking if it would be more acceptable at Sexual orientation and military service, Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military, Don't ask, don't tell, or LGBT rights in the United States#Military service. By suggesting that list, I'm not implying a priori that I'd be automatically in favor of any of those, I'm just suggesting that they might be more appropriate articles to pose your question about.  Rather than ask multiple times, you could try the project talk page at WT:LGBT. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for adding Photo