Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines

message: I suspect if we have Bisexuality as our CoM, then this definition will be fixed up.  But here's what I took from Talk:List of bisexual people:
If it were up to me, I would make each of the above things a possible criterion and suggest that a person could be considered bisexual if two or more of them could be found.  Any further thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexuality 

message: I think this should be "transgender" not "transgendered". Kolindigo (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Language can be transgendered but people cannot. Banjeboi 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes...
That *might* make sense for LGB, but not for T* (which is not a sexual preference but a gender identity) or I (which is defined medically by anatomy). T* status is not defined by sexual relationships, nor predictive of same. If you mean 'gay', say 'gay' - adding T as if it were a sexual orientation is incorrect in this instance. K7L (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "transgendered individuals" vs. "transgender individuals" 

message: A recent discussion here, led to a proposal of changes or additions to the MOS guideline here, and this has sparked a discussion here for those that may be interested. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to guidelines 

message: The essay says that birth names "may be woven into an "Early life" section", before giving an example which seems to avoid using a first name at all. ("Smith was born male but never felt this reflected who she was...") Should this include a male forename to clarify how such a name would be "woven in"? Or has the section skipped a bit and moved on to talking about gender in general at that point? --McGeddon (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a poor example, which illustrated an earlier version of the guidelines. While the name and gender they were assigned at birth doesn't always belong in the lede, it's generally acceptable to mention them in the body of the article. A better example would be "Smith was born male and named George, but never felt this reflected who she was..." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith example 

message: There have been disputed edits to Hari Nef concerning her birth name. An IP editor has challenged the current text at Talk:Hari Nef#Birth name. Please check that the article correctly follows the guidance at WP:TRANSNAME and consider whether that guidance should be changed. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I think that guidance is likely to confuse and maybe even to mislead. It should be brought into better and clearer alignment with the actual policies. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hari Nef 

message: Some non binary people use they/their as their pronoun. Others use what are for me at least less common terms like e/eir. When writing a bio of a non binary person, if their preferred pronoun is e/eir do I use that in the bio? Not my area of expertise and not sure what wikipedia guidelines are - I'm assuming I use their preferred pronoun but I want to be sure I'm doing it right.   ☕  Antiqueight chatter 11:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of clarity to the reader, I would suggest avoiding words whose meaning is not widely understood, in favor of the more familiar singular they/them/their, which is gender-neutral and should be acceptable even if it isn't their first choice. (e.g. I prefer he/him/his, but if you refer to me as they/them/their, that's not incorrect or offensive.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-binary people 

message: Hey. About my edits on Rosé, Kandy Muse and Denali. As everything in Wikipedia should be based on sources, I find it deeply problematic that drag performers are routinely categorized as LGBT (people/artists/etc.) without mentioning that in the actual text (with reliable sources where they themselves say they are LGBT). I have watched all seasons dozens of times and frankly don't remember any contestant stating on record that they are not LGBT, so this might feel silly for some editors, but still. Sources, sources, sources. This is Wikipedia after all. Any thoughts? -- Puisque (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Drag certainly is connected to LGBTQ culture, but a drag queen absolutely can be straight and cis, and we should not be making assumptions about their sexuality or gender. Only describe them as gay, bi, trans, queer, etc if they themselves do.--AlexandraIDV 03:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing drag performers as LGBT without clearly mentioning that in the article 

message: It seems strange to me that we still routinely describe living gay people as "openly gay" - shouldn't the default simply be "gay"? How many living people are verified by reliable sources to be gay such that we can describe them as that, but have not admitted it publicly? It reminds me of the phrase "practicing homosexual", as if the more usual state of being is a furtive celibate homosexual. Time to normalize being gay, surely? ----Pontificalibus 07:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: just use "gay" unless there's some historical context that makes the distinction important for that particular person.--AlexandraIDV 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will make this change in the article I was editing. Maybe someone could think about the wording of the first paragraph of the project page, which seems to encourage this wording and is likely the first thing seen by editors looking for guidance on this matter.----Pontificalibus 12:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a meaningful clarification in many historical contexts, such as describing Harvey Milk as "openly gay". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

text: The complication is that it is entirely possible to be gay but not out, and people do have a habit of trying to misuse Wikipedia to out people they perceive to be in that boat without obeying our rule about "not unless they're out". So the language around all of this is tricky and complicated, but there's a genuine reason why that's the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Openly gay"