Talk:Sexuality and gender identity–based cultures/Archive 1

message: (* I have moved this section up because this conversation doesn't seem to be ongoing, while the other one does.  Exploding Boy 06:26, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC))
Is this article supposed to be about history, or today's culture? The current content seems to suggest the former? I'm confused. Dysprosia 07:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point out what you're referring to, specifically? (Of course, without history there's no culture.) - Montréalais 07:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No wait, I was confused abotu that actually.... *grumbles* hang on a sec... Dysprosia 07:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text:  I think I've got it now :) Dysprosia 08:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: on what the article is about

message: I've written this conceptual framework as a proposal to the article.  I'd like to know what others think about adding it. (Between lines below) Ray Foster 12:39, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
----
Historically speaking, LGBT identities have been the focus of medical and psychological diagnosis or religious definition. However, LGBT culture, like other minority cultures, rejects diagnosis and majority and religious definitions in favor of self-defined identities.
:While I would say that mainstream LGBT culture rejects medicalization of their sexual or gender identities, there are LGBT people who feel they are broken and want to be fixed.  There are plenty of religous people in the mainstream LGBT culture.  To be sure, they are members of relatively liberal or libertarian religious sects, or have an independent spirituality.  Others, which may or may not fit in the mainstream, simply take traditional religious ideas and apply them to same-sex relationships.  There are plenty of people who take large swaths of "majority" culture and apply them to same-sex relationships. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this sentence is actually saying much of anything...I guess it amounts to asserting that LGBT culture exists and that it's legit to call it a "culture".  I'm not sure it's necessary to assert that explicitly; perhaps it's best to simply start describing it, and what its boundaries are (like non-participating LGBT people).  I'm also not sure that the word "culture" connotes a singular conceptual framework.  Lots of different people probably have different ideas for what "counts" as "culture" or what the "nature" of "culture" in the world is. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That's one perspective; that the minority is defined by the oppression of the majority.  I think that's partly true, but it's also defined by common personal attributes, the need to find romantic and sexual partners, common practices (like pride festivals), and a network of social connections, including friendships and media. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Inheritance of or exposure to the beliefs of the majority culture is also a positive thing in many ways. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what's meant by "as a rule"; sexual orientation and deafness are both partially genetically heritable, we think.  It's certainly true there's a mismatch in many cases.  I'm sure many deaf and LGBT people are perfectly free to develop their "minority identity" at home, where they can consume minority-culture media, hang out with or chat remotely with friends who are also members of the minority, etc.  I'm sure there are also plenty of intolerant homes that effectively prevent expression of LGBT identity at home; not sure how that works with deaf people. The idea of comparing sexual minorities to language, disability, racial minorities is quite interesting, though. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conceptual framework for LGBT 

message: :not having the education-level to appreciate it
This implies that the entirety of, say, "gay culture" is only accessible to an elite who are properly educated in its appreciation. I don't think any particular education above and beyond awareness is necessary to participate in the culture by consuming gay media, going to gay bars, or wearing a rainbow flag.  The end result is that this sentence comes off to me as vaguely offensive. -- Beland 03:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed phrase 

message: Is there any reason for the two 'see also's? there is one just prior to the contents which seems superfluous. any objections to me moving it to the bottom with the others?  Davepealing 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "see also"? I see many in this article.  CyntWorkStuff 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also?