Talk:Gay/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Evolution of words, should it be allowed?

Why can words evolve to a point that dictionary and encyclopedias update the word's meaning away from it's original meaning? A word has a meaning, slang and profanity is not supposed to be adopted as this destroys order. H2O is water, can I just decide H2O means Beastiality and get enough people to agree to that so it becomes changed in the dictionary? I don't think that should be possible but it appears that it is. 50.35.106.46 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Gay" itself is a slang word, and sadly has almost replaced the original "upliftedness" it meant. And unfortunately also the normalicy of the word. To avoid misrepresentation of facts, such as in phrases like "gay is normal", ofcourse upliftedness is normal, however if same gender sex is normal is still debated many places. The article should use an accurate to point language, such as "same gender sex" rather than gay. Homo also, is "homo sapiens", and ofcourse "homo sapiens" is normal. So I completely agree, the slang should be replaced by accurate language. Such as "they practise same gender sex", which is more like the original "approching men for lusts", as monotheism and the foundation of society, talks about. Sky Letter (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sky Letter, gay is not simply a slang word anymore; it's used in numerous academic sources with regard to homosexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A lexicon is supposedly about correct understanding of thing, however some do not understand that ignoring the original structure of the word, its intended context and etymology, is ignoring its inner resonance, and enough of this, causes a semantic regression. Until the phrase looses its meaning. For instance, you used both "gay" and "homo" in a way, that makes the dialogue ambiguous. Why not use "practicants of same gender sex" which is completely clear? 84.215.234.139 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not? WP:Common name? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am looking closer at the article, and thinking that LGBT activists make a big point about "gay" being completey normal, that they are born like that, and this is true to 1:1 reality, and that they sleep with same sex by nature. Some cultures seem to be closer in their wording of this. I would suggest leaving the word "gay" for this, which is obscure, and rather using a phrase related to this. Or one might aswell use "fairy" as a "sexual orientation". Sky Char3 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is truly bloated, with referances to theaters and much more, and like LGBT is a different thing etc.. If you should get to the point of "gay" it should rather read something like this -

Gay is a slang term, related to a person who thinks that sex with the same gender is ok. It was originally used to mean a kind of happyness for "commoners", but now is mostly used as "homophile".

Identifiers with gay often claim they are born like that, and that they sleep with the same sex by nature, and that it is their true identification.

Often also called "Fairy" and many other names.

It was considered a mental diagnosis in early psychiatry, but later the hippies changed this, with LSD-infused culture, where sexual concepts where more abstract and welcome.

And that is the trend that contiunes, with LGBT being another instance of this, that considers sexual concepts such as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisesual, Transexual" to be different things, and support them. And later variations on LGBT for instance LGBTQ, which includes queer, as a differentiated concept.

For some reason "straight" is not included, which many practicants seem to consider "boring".

In monotheistic societies, they are considered to be crossing the boundaries of The Divine. Sky Char3 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• This thread began with either trolling or well-meaning ignorant nonsense, and now it's getting out of hand. Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages are intended to discuss articles, not the topics of articles. Everyone is free to think whatever they like about the use of the word "gay", but the opinions expressed in the semiliterate ramblings on this page are original research and will not find their way into the article. As it stands today, the article is compliant with all fundamental Wikipedia policies. Anyone who doesn't like those policies is free to propose their modification, but in the proper place. Not here. Off-topic posts are subject to archiving, hatting or removal. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies indeed. I am indeed a scholar, and you are ofcourse unable to recognize it, "policies" or not. And update to what I said also, the particular slang term gay, seems to be traceable back to Shakespeare, and theatre. While ofcourse many consider the original to be "sodomites". Are supposedly "wikipedia policies" better than hard historical fact? Then you should consider what ignorant hick made those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.234.139 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

ULISES BUSTO PEON Diegocasares1 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Suggest adding citation in Section 1.2 (Sexualization) between paragraphs 4 (Bringing Up Baby) and 5 (In 1950): There is an early unambiguous reference to the homosexual meaning of 'gay' in Cole Porter’s lyric to the song “Farming” from his show “Let’s Face It” (1941): “Don’t inquire of Georgie Raft/Why his cow has never calfed/ Georgie’s bull is beautiful, but he’s gay!” (Reference- https://www.thepeaches.com/music/composers/cole/porterlyrics.html). Danny Kaye (from the original Broadway cast) recorded “Farming” in January 1942 with this lyric included and it was commercially released by Columbia later that year. (Reference- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IzDAtId9o). Psmithii (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for citing your sources! (That puts you miles ahead of many editors who make edit requests...) The problem is that you're citing primary sources (the song itself) but requesting that your interpretation of the sources (the intended meaning of the word) be added to the article. That's considered original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. You need a secondary source, such as an article discussing the meaning of 'gay' in this song. See WP:PSTS for more information on this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

CHANGE: ...the line can also be interpreted to mean, "I just decided to do something frivolous."

In 1950, the earliest reference found to date for the word gay...

TO: ...the line can also be interpreted to mean, "I just decided to do something frivolous."

Cole Porter’s lyric to the song “Farming” from his show “Let’s Face It” (1941) includes the lines: “Don’t inquire of Georgie Raft/Why his cow has never calfed/ Georgie’s bull is beautiful, but he’s gay!” (Reference https://www.thepeaches.com/music/composers/cole/porterlyrics.html). Danny Kaye (from the original Broadway cast) recorded “Farming” in January 1942 with this lyric included and it was commercially released by Columbia later that year. (Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IzDAtId9o).

In 1950, the earliest reference found to date for the word gay... Psmithii (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Per previous responses to this same request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

CHANGE:

...the line can also be interpreted to mean, "I just decided to do something frivolous."[17]

In 1950, the earliest reference found to date for the word gay...

TO:

...the line can also be interpreted to mean, "I just decided to do something frivolous."[17]

There is an early unambiguous reference to the homosexual meaning of “gay” in Cole Porter’s lyric to the song “Farming” from his show “Let’s Face It” (1941): “Don’t inquire of Georgie Raft/Why his cow has never calfed/ Georgie’s bull is beautiful, but he’s gay!” (Reference https://www.thepeaches.com/music/composers/cole/porterlyrics.html). Danny Kaye (from the original Broadway cast) recorded “Farming” in January 1942 with this lyric included and it was commercially released by Columbia later that year. (Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IzDAtId9o).

In 1950, the earliest reference found to date for the word gay... Psmithii (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The issue isn't where it goes in the article, the issue is that your request constitutes original research and doesn't cite secondary sources to support the edit you want made. Please read WP:PSTS and my previous response on this issue. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Happy and Gay .."

In 1950s Australian advertising English a cute little rhyme of "Happy and Gay the Laxette Way" was used to market a chocolate aperient. I throw in that dated/archaic usage, perhaps as a soothing carminative, given the doctrinaire stances being taken by some contributors.220.235.50.75 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

given the doctrinaire stances being taken by some contributors Who? Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, for example, some parts of Evolution of words, should it be allowed? above, seems somewhat so, .. 220.235.50.75 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)220.235.50.75 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 220.235.50.75 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Goy

It may actually go all the way back to "Goy", a jewish term for "foreigner" originally. (Shabbos Goy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:54C:1F93:BD73:42CD (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well... dunno. Yiddish for "homosexual man" is feygele, which I think is a diminutive of foygl ("bird"), & that's where we get "fag." By comparison, it seems really odd that Jews would be characterizing goyim as homosexual, or vice versa.

The "goy"/"gay" thing sounds urban-legendy, like where "kike" derives from illiterate immigrants signing entry forms with a little circle, a keikeleh, rather than an "x" (a cross). That tale dates back at least to Leo Rosten.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Text incorrect?

This sentence doesn't read right.

An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a girl white slaved to a French brothel. Surely it should read:

An example is a letter read to a London court in 1885 during the prosecution of brothel madam and procuress Mary Jeffries that had been written by a white girl enslaved in a French brothel.

Cassandra

Perhaps it's supposed to be "while" rather than "white"? DonIago (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Gay or Gay?

Should the title of this article be italicized? I've started a conversation here:

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Gay_or_Gay?

(Please comment there, not here, to avoid splitting this discussion.) WanderingWanda (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Short description

Who knew that there were such polemics hiding behind the innocent-seeming {{short description}} value in this article (and in every other article that has it, as well as those that don't)? In any case, the result of a discussion at VPT, is that we shouldn't leave it empty and default to the Wikidata value, rather, it should always be set to some value here, using the {{short description}} template, *even* if the value is exactly the same as the value Wikidata currently has. The reason for this, is to maintain a consensus value in the field, even if the value is vandalized subsequently at Wikidata (which is not that rare for some articles, apparently). The actual text for the WP:short description in this article should follow policy and consensus. Adding User:Crossroads. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

' is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. with ' is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual male or the trait of being a homosexual male. as the female equivalent is lesbian 71.241.131.5 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. From the basic gist of it, though, you'll need to start a discussion and achieve consensus for this change first, before making this edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Image in Sexualization section - meaning?

Is it about A the prevalence of the word per se or B the use of the word in its sexual meaning? Probably A, but the image is positioned directly below the Sexualization section heading, so there is some potential for misunderstanding. One way or another the meaning needs to be made clear. Boscaswell talk 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that picture should be removed. It confuses more than enlightens. Anyone can have Google create such a graph, but we don't add them to Wikipedia usually. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"That's gay." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect That's gay.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 22#That's gay. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved as redirect to Gay#Generalized pejorative use. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't think there should be a history of the word here. Each word has old meanings that are no longer relevant. Why include it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs)

Because it's history and highly relevant. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the word's meaning has changed dramatically in the lifetimes of many older editors, including me. I still possess books written as if the word has nothing to do with homosexuality. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ron Oden up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Ron Oden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Hard to believe sources aren’t plentiful for this mayor of Palm Springs. First openly gay mayor of a California city. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Gay should not be listed as gender specific imo.

Oxford dictionary defines it as a gender-neutral term.

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00093147

"c. Of a person: homosexual. Of a place: frequented by homosexuals. slang."

Furthermore specifying this as being a gender-specific term (male) is sure to confuse terms like "gay-rights" which pertain to the rights of all homosexuals, or movements such as the Gay Liberation Front, which included several noteworthy women, and were fighting for rights of all homosexuals.

I believe it is fair to say that the term "Gay" being gender specifi is in fact incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticklerwithwords (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There was some back and forth in the edit history in the last couple days. I've restored the long standing lead sentence and added a second sentence about how it usually is used for men. It is not always, though - it isn't even always used for homosexuality at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In the sexual orientation academic literature, and when it comes to descriptions such as "gay and lesbian" or ones with "LGBT" in them, "gay" is usually used for men. But, in general (meaning beyond academic literature, etc.), it's also commonly used for women. Anyway, thanks for this. I'd missed the change. Following your edit, I altered the text to this since the second paragraph addresses its usage with regard to gender, especially with regard to men. But maybe it is better to have it as the second sentence. And then just let the second paragraph elaborate like it already does. But, also, maybe "although it is more commonly used to refer specifically to men" is not needed at all since the lead already states, "In the 1960s, gay became the word favored by homosexual men to describe their sexual orientation." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be more correct to indicate in the preamble that this term refers to homosexual men, but it can also be used to refer to homosexual people in General. Валя Беляев (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read the lead? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I quote the text from the article itself: By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex, although it is more commonly used to refer specifically to men. Валя Беляев (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

Inclusion of asexual gays

This article should probably be changed to swap homosexual with homoamoric to include asexual gays who are homoromantic asexual. It should also mention that nonbinary people can be gay as well. ~Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic Circle System (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Arctic Circle System, no. We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. Homoromantic is not a standard term. It's mainly used within the asexual community. And asexuality is still very much debated among researchers when it comes to considering it a sexual orientation. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen So you're saying that people can't not experience sexual attraction? People who are homoromantic asexual are NOT homosexual. Have some decency. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 is talking about what the literature says, and she is correct about that. You have offered no reliable sources anyway. The definitions currently in the article follow the due weight of the sources, as they are supposed to do. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, homoamoric is not a standard enough term to use. Asexuality is also already covered in the article. Also I would remind Arctic to keep things civil when discussing on Wikipedia.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Arctic Circle System - I think you're already bumping into a problem I hinted at on my Talk page. You're using terms that might have a 100% clear meaning to you but, as neologisms, are unclear to others, and it's a certainty there will be confusion and disagreement, if not plain unawareness, in the wider community as to what the terms mean. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Arctic Circle System, there are asexual people who identify as homosexual (or rather gay or lesbian). For many asexual people, homoromantic is just an alternative name for that. This is because sexual orientation not only refers to sexual attraction...but also to romantic attraction (although the two are usually intertwined; otherwise, there isn't much to distinguish romantic love from platonic love). That is why this 2013 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source, from Sage Publications, states, "Many asexual people want to form intimate romantic relationships, just not sexual ones, and they may have romantic attraction to certain genders. Consequently, asexual people can also be lesbian, gay, bi, queer or straight, for example. They may use a term like biromantic rather than bisexual though, to emphasise that it is a romantic identity rather than a sexual one." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

The homossexual act is disorded in itself Sebastiaocf (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

This is one of the most idiotic entries I've ever wasted my time reading. Take it down. Thank you kindly. A very biased, one sided post on the subject. Have some respect please.

No. -Roxy . wooF 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Another word for Gay

Neat Nert is a word old folks use to communicate the word “gay”. Myboy02 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

Endless voied (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to type that being queer is not a choice

Ok

Endless voied (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok

Endless voied (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HurricaneEdgar 16:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminology of homosexuality

Before Gay became the term used for same sex attraction there were other terms used such as catamite, sodomite, invert, similisexual, homosexualist, third sex, and Uranian.

the book “my secret life”, published around 1888, uses the word gay very extensively to describe sexually active people, (but not specifically homosexual)

BTW,There’s a Wikipedia entry for the book.

107.2.210.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Incoming links and primary topic question

There have been a couple discussions about whether "the word gay" is the primary topic for gay:

• 2009 discussion
• 2014 requested move to Gay (terminology) with gay being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Homosexuality. This was closed as consensus against. But to be honest, it seems to me a lot of the commenters on the RM didn't really understand the proposal or Wikipedia's policies around ptopics.

The above include lots of discussions about what a reader is likely looking for when they type "gay" into the search bar, but another important consideration for ptopics, which was not really raised, is incoming links. Check out a selection of articles that wikilink to [[gay]]. I looked at a representative sample of 100 of these (that search link is sorted by random), and of those, 2/100 were actually referring to the word gay. The other 98 were either referring to gay men, or homosexuality more broadly (I didn't try to count the split). By this measure, the current primary topic arrangement is astonishingly bad.

So I want to revive this topic (informally for now). Should this article's title be disambiguated, as in Jew (word), Fart (word), Marijuana (word), etc.? And if so, what should become of gay? The obvious options being:

1. Disambiguation page
2. Primary redirect to homosexuality
3. Primary redirect to gay men (probably a non-starter, but included for completeness)

If it's decided to keep the status quo, should we go through the 3,730 current mainspace [[gay]] wikilinks and retarget them? And how can we prevent more mistargeted links accumulating in the future? Colin M (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a wikipedia entry for the history of the word "gay". I was looking at my 1978 high school year book. A girl had the first name Gay, and it seemed like a normal name, similar to Joy. The word was also used freely throughout the year book to mean "happy" without any other connotation. That made me curious about when the meaning of the word changed among the population. 71.244.254.154 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Antonia Bluher

@Colin M:, that's a reasonable proposition. The only thing I'd say for sure, is that the word, its meaning, and history (not just in English!) is well worth an encyclopedic article, so a move would make sense to me, where a redirect seems out of the question. The history of this article needs to be kept with whatever title it ends up having, if it is renamed. I would be opposed to the previously nominated name "Gay (terminology)", as that is a completely different, and much larger topic, and not looking to see it encompass the terms now included at LGBT slang.

As to what to do with the current title, probably a new disambig page created to occupy the spot after a move of the current one, but that's before I have really considered the pros and cons. A considerably more minor point is stylizing the new title, which imho would need to be something like "Gay (word)", thus requiring the DISPLAYTITLE magic word to display correctly. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WILL.I.AMMJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Gayest" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gayest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Gayest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

162.249.10.25 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion

At the top of the page, I think where it says "to describe people attracted to members of the same sex" isn't clear enough on whether it means specifically homosexual people or if it's that way because multisexuality wasn't widely acknowledged at the time. 2601:5C7:8300:EF70:6CE1:52B6:C13C:4AB2 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Cause, I mean, the way it is now, I feel sort of like we're accidentally doing a little bit of bi erasure... No? 2601:5C7:8300:EF70:6CE1:52B6:C13C:4AB2 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@2601:5C7:8300:EF70:6CE1:52B6:C13C:4AB2: how do you think the sentence should be? Tazuco (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's specifically talking about what "major LGBT groups and style guides" said at "the end of the 20th century". As someone who lived then and self-identified as bisexual, I can confirm that "gay" was often used inclusively of bisexual people, but not always. It's been ambiguous for decades, and it isn't up to us to retroactively "fix" that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Gay

I would like to add fact about how gay people prefer to be called, instead of calling everyone gay KhethiweM (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@KhethiweM: It's going to be hard to add blanket sourcing for that, but what reliable sources have you found? —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred:I don't have much evidence, but I was busy doing research about gay people, most of them feel offended when being called gays, mostly the part where people ask them with one of them is the female or a male. May you kindly address the world about that. We have different kinds of gays and the way they address people, this leads to gay people attacking straight people because of being treated unfairly. E.g, we have gays who prefer to be called bottoms/tops and we have those who don't feel free wearing female clothes as well as those who prefer being more feminine KhethiweM (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@KhethiweM: Sorry, you'll need evidence and sources, and you'll still need to come up with a blanket term. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

also, isn't that a case of respectability politics? — Tazuco 20:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So if someone dislikes being called gay, then they aren't gay. there's g0y and ex-gay for them — Tazuco 20:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So will links be good? KhethiweM (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This Article Is Incompetently Researched

The level of research in this article is quite odd. It goes on and on about historical uses of the word "gay" but completely neglects the most basic and best source of information about such matters, namely the Oxford English Dictionary. As a result, its information is very erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:100:3DA0:391C:F6C9:5451:8C5B (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The OED is cited. There's just a limitation in how much information is in the definition and etymology to be used here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I understand. In this very long article you let stand a statement that "In 1950, the earliest reference found to date for the word gay as a self-described name for homosexuals ..." because you don't think there is room to mention the OED's numerous examples of such references back to 1937. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.63 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

change a to g

Please except Brehmanreally (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You need explain fully any changes you think are needed.Graham Beards (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"The gays" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The gays and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#The gays until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gays" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gays and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Gays until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the introduction

Is the word gay when used as ridicule and mockery as stated in the last paragraph of the introduction:

"At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. Among younger speakers, the word has a meaning ranging from derision (e.g., equivalent to 'rubbish' or 'stupid') to a light-hearted mockery or ridicule (e.g., equivalent to 'weak', 'unmanly', or 'lame'). The extent to which these usages still retain connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[needs update]"

always light hearted? I feel like it can be very offensive depending on the context, intimacy/relationship, and sexuality of the people involved. Am I wrong?

When a conservative father calls his gay son "gay" in a pejorative/derogatory way, as to denote inferiority or weakness, still light hearted?

PS.: I'm awful with commas, sorry if I misplaced some of them Fullmetal11 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)