Talk:LGBTQ/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Typo

In the sentence 'Transgender actress Candis Cayne in 2009 described the LGBT community "the last great minority", noting that "We can still be harassed openly" and be "called out on television"' It should be "described the LGBT community —as-." The as is missing

Sysuphistic (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative terms - move to varients

Just reading through and I think the phrase 'alternative terms' is very similar to the phrase 'varient', should this content be merged?

If the point of this section is to show low use of the word, I would suggest this section needs a new name. E.g. uncommon terms, or something along that line. Saying this, though, the varients that are currently under 'alternative terms' may draw away from their rising use in writing. Maybe placing them under 'varients' would be better, but highlight contestation where present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs) 08:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Variants" is supposed to be about extensions or alterations to the main LGBT initialism, while "alternative terms" is terms that replace the initialism altogether. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A small suggestion-

Hey, NotSchoolSmart here, Do you think we might be able to add more flags? That would be great! If not that is OK, I just think that it would be neat for people who want to learn more about LGBTQ+! Thanks! (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Thank you!

@NotSchoolSmart: If your specific about which ones maybe, but most of them I don't think so. As a good chunk of them are not recognizable outside of the LGBT community. Considering the fact too that a lot of them are disputed or not fully recognized within the community this can also be an issue with neutral point of view. The flags placed here are considered widely used and well known, and are notable enough to be listed. Chariotsacha (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gender and Sexual Minorities" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gender and Sexual Minorities. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 18#Gender and Sexual Minorities until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"TGBL" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TGBL. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 19#TGBL until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

} i just wanna add that not all gays are ready to come out and wanted to add some help advice } 72.221.92.129 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources? Any statistics? Any studies? Or any stories from gay people?CycoMa (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Challenging the history of the term

The first sentence of section #History of the term currently says, "Before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, there was no common non-derogatory vocabulary for non-heterosexuality" but I don't believe this is accurate. The terms "sexual inversion" (for the state) and "invert" (for the person) were used in 19th century in medical references, and by the early 20th century, in popular literature, such as Well of Loneliness. The term uranian was also used, but it was never common, I believe.

Later in that section, there is the claim that the term homophile "replaced" homosexual in the 1950s and 1960s, but it never replaced it, they coexisted, with the latter being over a hundred times more common, and the former being relegated primarily to insider groups and entirely unknown to the public.

Something else that is not made clear by this section and perhaps should be, is that the term "heterosexuality" only came to be used as a counterpoint to the term "homosexuality" (both coined by translators of von Krafft Ebbing around 1892) and whose usage always lagged behind that of "homosexual". This is a standard type of development in language, where the unmarked term doesn't "need" to exist, until the variant is recognized and defined. The same thing happened with "transgender" (c. 1965) and "cisgender" (1990s).

Later in the section, it says that, "From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States," but U.S. usage precedes that. See for example, Nakayama (1980), and usage in scholarly articles trails activist usage. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the term did not originally have any negative connotations; it was a term used in medical, psychological, and legal circumstances. The first two paragraphs of this section seem all wrong, and should be removed or rewritten. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section's lead sentence, which had been tagged {{dubious}} since July 2017. Two other issues still tagged "dubious" remain in this section, for now. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Unarchived on 11:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. Mathglot (talk)

Unarchived on 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. (added DNAU.) Mathglot (talk)

"The first widely used term, homosexual, now carries negative connotations in the United States.[15]" isn't supported by the link at all, there is no mention of it there, just newspaper style guides expressing a preference for gay and lesbian.

21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.56.14 (talk • contribs) 21:53, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

References

Is there a source for “Less common variants”?

These two initialisms are sometimes combined to form the terms LGBTIQ [7] or LGBT+ to encompass spectrums of sexuality and gender.[8] Other, less common variants also exist, such as LGBTQIA+,[9] with the A standing for "asexual" or "aromantic".

The lead here claims that LGBTQIA+ is “less common” than LGBTIQ. Is there any actual source for this? From my experience LGBTQIA+ is used all the time whereas I have literally never seen LGBTIQ before this article. Should this claim maybe be removed if a source cannot be found? IMO it’s incorrect. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

Delete "ally" as it is not a sexuality nor a gender identity. Thank you. 2603:8080:2302:3634:85A2:1B5C:3DA7:DEDD (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The only place this is used is in the explanation of a specific initialism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Remove "ally" from the explanation of the LGBTQIA+ acronym. Ally is not a sexual or gender identity, and perpetuating this misinterpretation actively erases and harms asexual and aromantic people.

References: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LGBTQIA https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBTQIA https://lgbtqiainfo.weebly.com/acronym-letters-explained.html

Articles: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-in-lgbtqia-does-not-stand-for-ally https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/lgbtqia-shouldnt-include-ally/

If this edit is refused, please provide a reference for 'A' representing Ally. Yenknip (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wiktionary is not a reliable source; Weebly is a host page; the Odyssey Online and Everyday Feminism are opinion pieces. LGBT#General explains the usage of ally. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In so far as there are authoritative sources on a social issue that have very different degrees of oppression by country:

• Stonewall.org does not list ally in their breakdown of "LGBTQ+" https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms
• The Trevor Project https://www.thetrevorproject.org/trvr_support_center/glossary/ doesn't mention ally.
• And a dictionary source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBTQIA does not list ally.

Yes, there is a discussion to be had about how allies can support the QUILTBAG community, but ally is not represented by the acronym.

Yenknip (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The use of ally, and controversy around the use, are already sourced in the article. [1], [2], [3] are all sources for the use of ally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Those three sources are opinion pieces and are relevant to the section discussing the controversy. I am contending the "or ally" in the opening paragraph of the page. If that deserves to be at the top of the page, it should have a source of equal authority to Stonewall charity which does not include "or ally". Yenknip (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, the current reference[9] for LGBTQIA+ is a dead link to a US University student services web page. Yenknip (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

CupcakKe song

@AllegedlyHuman: you reverted my reversion of your addition of Audacious (album) to the hatnote. I am reading WP:HNR rule 4 differently than you are; in referring to "notable topic X", the guideline links to WP:N, and this CupcakKe song is not evidently notable. Are you confident in your reading of the guideline? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Even without a page currently, the song "Lgbt" may meet WP:NSONG. The concern I have more broadly, though, is due to the existing redirect LGBT (song), which previously was not linked here despite being a parenthetically disambiguated form of the title of this page (WP:SIMILAR). The album itself is certainly wikinotable, and per NSONG songs should redirect to an album page when they don't have a page themselves. I think the "commonly referred to" aspect applies here; a case like Gdańsk, where the city is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Danzig, should have a redirect and hatnote. Even without a page of its own, LGBT (song) would refer to Audacious (album), and should redirect there; as the redirect is WP:SIMILAR to LGBT, the album should be hatnoted here. Disambiguation pages frequently list terms without articles themselves, such as the examples at MOS:DABPIPING. A hatnote operates like a disambiguation page, except for WP:ONEOTHER term. Were there more terms to make a dab page, it surely would be included there as a link. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: ping so you're at least aware of this discussion. I am surprised to hear LGBT (disambiguation) doesn't exist and am working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear. Yes, if you can find any other item simply referred to as "LGBT" then a dab page would be the simplest and cleanest solution. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I wasn't aware of it. Also, unlike an article where you have to hit critical mass before exposing it in mainspace, that's not the case with a D-page, so you can just create the page while working on it, and let it grow organically as you find stuff to add. Thinking ahead, I'm wondering if we shouldn't keep some of the existing hatnote terms here anyway, primarily because this article is about a term, which is unusual. As for adding the song to the hatnote, I'm persuadable; I think I was exhibiting some displaced reaction from innumerable cases of people trying to sneak their favorite garage band into the encyclopedia or boost their fave band to a higher profile by any means necessary, but this isn't that case, obviously. If the song is notable on its own (not clear to me yet), then I'm not opposed to adding it to the hatnote even without an article backing it.

Slight o/t, but as long as we're on the hatnote: outside Wikipedia, a word-as-word inside an italicized sentence would be unitalicized to set off its WAW status, but not sure if MOS says anything about this. If not, we could probably just single-quote 'LGBT ' in the hatnote and that would work. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. I like the single quote option. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• OK, good that the dab situation has been settled. But some of the hatnotes up there presently are pretty close to WP:RELATED territory. While LGBT history, LGBT community and Outline of LGBT topics are no doubt related to the title, I doubt people searching just for "LGBT" will be looking for them instead (possible exception for "LGBT community"). As such, should those links remain? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mostly neutral, leaning toward removing them. There's an LGBT sidebar nearby for anyone looking to find related articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Can we add 2s+ we should be inclusion not exclude native — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:701f:9500:2d38:e777:4028:1a84 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you could find some reliable sources using or discussing acronyms that include 2S+. In the future, if you want to make a formal edit request, you should use Template:edit semi-protected and suggest added/removed language in "change x to y" format. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Looked for myself and found the CBC and The Globe and Mail using LGBT2S, The Guardian using LGBTQ2. Rab V (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice! I also found the BBC. Looks like there are already two parts of the Variants section mentioning 2 or 2S. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Racism in LGBT

I have put in a few links within the article and it was removed as being UNDUE. As what I have placed in is sourced, Where in the article should I place it. " There has been articles written that talk about the problems of racism within the LGBT Community. This has gone to the point where this is also a belief that there may exist white supremacy within the LGBT community. Challenges to make the LGBT community more inclusive towards people of color have been make. See Also Racism in the LGBT community" BlackAmerican (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up at LGBT community. There is already a section on a similar topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank youBlackAmerican (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

Wrong grammar and definition of gay. Egua-45 (talk) 21:37, 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is 'history of the term' section 75% just complaining about splinters within the gay rights movement prior to the creation of this term that have nothing to do with it? The term was never exclusive just because it was shorter, no citation references that the L or B took time to add because of pushback, it just came about organically as the movement grew. Really weird overall negatively-framed article on something simple. Is one of the major editors a fundementalist christian as is always the case when articles like this are degraded so badly?

Add GRSM/GSRM

In the list of acronyms, there should be mentioned GRSM: Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minority, along with GSRM, the same thing in a different order.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

I would like to edit this page because the term LGBT is out of date, and I want to change it to LGBTQ. GBATW (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 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. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So many variants in the lead

Do we really need 8 variants of the term in the lead? Looking at Google ngrams, LGBT and LGBTQ are used far more frequently than the other terms in the lead. IMO, "GLBT" should be in the "History of the term", and the rest should only be included in the "Variants" section. Thoughts? – Bangalamania (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Boldly removed these terms from lead. – Bangalamania (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

History of LGBT

Although this article does a good job of introducing the topic, what follows could use some improvement. It would be helpful to focus on LGBT issues today in the United States and around the world. Another alternative could be going into depth about LGBT history in different countries or discussing the intersectionality of LGBTQ+ communities with other marginalized groups. Gdelc03111 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

LGBT vs GLBT and HIV

I consistent hear from the community that the L comes first because of Lesbian activism during the AIDS crisis, is this historically accurate and if so can we include it please? 2600:1012:B109:2A12:0:4E:A775:AC01 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmichicich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NiaSavon. Peer reviewers: BrookeStrausbaugh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 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) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erintoowavee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madison.shanley001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AllisonDN.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pansexual

Before I start I should declare a conflict of interest as I identify as pansexual I am not unbiased to the topic.

Bi sexual is an attraction to two genders (male +female)(trans inc.)

Pansexual is an attraction to anyone regardless of gender. (Inc those who are not gender binary).

https://www.newuniversity.org/2022/02/07/the-real-differences-between-bisexual-and-pansexual/

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/bisexual-vs-pansexual

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The point? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Pansexual is referenced in the article as a “sub category” of bisexuality it fails to recognise the differences between the two, all genders is a better reference than saying despite gender:

bisexuality (two) (male /female)

pan (all) (gender binary)(gender non conforming))(multiple sexes intersex)

Pansexual is referenced in the article as a “sub category” of bisexuality it fails to recognise the differences between the two, all genders is a better reference than saying despite gender:

bisexuality (two) (male /female)

pan (all) (gender binary)(gender non conforming))(multiple sexes intersexChefBear01 (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Request to include the A for Asexual visibility in the “LGBTQI” in the first paragraph 1.43.25.124 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is already covered in the article, not sure if it merits mention in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I might be slightly biased, but I support this motion. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 17:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I support Googleguy007 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I support that too. If we include intersex in the I, why not asexual? Also, the A isn't for asexuals only, A sometimes include aromantic and agender people (imo it should also include androgynes and androgynous people, but there aren't sources on these). — Tazuco 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The 'A' was additionally first included in the early 2000s and 2010s to represent allies, mainly in university settings, where "LGBTA Alliance" clubs were active, with LGBTA being seen as a more inclusive alternative to the original GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) acronym. It was considered controversial at the time though, and eventually fell out of favor in common use, though some university clubs continue to use "LGBTA" in this way for legacy reasons. It would be nice to see this history reflected somewhere in the article, as the article otherwise makes it seem as though the 'A' was only recently added.

Here is one source, many more are easily found: https://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_50e5e8f6-5edc-11e4-a17f-f77a797314c5.html 2603:8000:C33E:614F:2C7A:1DB4:A43B:D48B (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You're right. There was also the acronym GLA (used in GLAAD and GLS in Brazil) — Tazuco 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If anything, we should probably move in the opposite direction of removing all of the variants of the LGBT abbreviation from the lead, in favor of a sentence indicating something along the lines of "There are many alternate formulations of the LGBT acronym, frequently adding letters or symbols to explicitly include other subgroups within the wider LGBT sphere." IMO, there are too many variations of LGBT to include in the lead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, though I’d also support changing LGBT to “LGBTQ+” in general since it implies inclusion of all sexual and gender minorities without turning into some monstrous alphabet soup. Dronebogus (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of mentioning every popular variation or adding more variations, it's a case of inclusion and inherence. although I prefer LGBTQIAPN+, I must admit that LGBTQIA is one of the most compact variants, and well established.

The Q doesn't always cover ipsogender/cisgender straight intersex and cis heteroromantic asexual people, even though the plus (+) is there. It should also be observed that rowiki uses LGBTQIA+ and svwiki uses HBTQ in the titles. — Tazuco 20:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard HBTQ used in English discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

perhaps it's not used in English either, but I used it in the context that it includes the Q inherently — Tazuco 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved for now, possible future consideration for LGBT+ (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

---

LGBT → LGBTQ – Suggested as more inclusive and encompassing of other identities that are not represented strictly by LGBT umbrella (such as an asexual individual, which is not essentially trans, bi, gay, or lesbian). While there are several other variants, LGBTQ or LGBT+ seems indirectly inclusive of the A (agender/aromantic/ace), I (intersex), P (pansexual), H (hijra/HIV-positive), D (demisexual/demiromantic/demigender), N (non-binary/non-conforming), etc. while not mentioning a bunch of letters into one acronym. While LGBT is simple, LGBTQ is simpler in the sense of inherence and belonging. — Tazuco 23:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: As you've already said LGBT+ also is indirectly inclusive of the same meanings, why do you prefer LGBTQ over LGBT+? I've checked Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Question marks and plus signs and there's no technical reasons why we couldn't rename to LGBT+. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think LGBTQ is much more commonly used than LGBT+, that's part of the criteria for the name. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmmm. There may be a regional variation there? I know in the UK, charities, NGOs, trade unions, NHS, universities, mediam etc. use LGBT+ and not LGBTQ or LGBTQ+. Though I do recognise if I do a quick Google search for "LGBTQ" I get more results than for "LGBT+" (~188,000,000 versus ~22,400,000) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I fear that LGBT+ could create problems with formatting, which is something we don't want. Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Note: due to the relevance, I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies of this move request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I forgot to check all of the WikiProjects listed in the banner, so have now also notified the rest: WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Sociology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd say I'd prefer anything more inclusive than LGBT, so either LGBT+ or LGBTQ (plus LGBTQ+). — Tazuco 17:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Same here. I tend to favor LGBTQ, but I wouldn't mind LGBT+ either. Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Now that you think about it. LGBT+ is probably the best way to show acceptance while also shortening it to the original origin. However, I just can't help to feel a certain way because the letter is common used and added. Which is why I think the term LGBTQ+ is better suited because it highlights the shorten acronym, it's inclusive because you are still adding the + sign, and uses the popular variant with the letter. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - see ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do challenge the common name theory because LGBTQ is commonly used more so than LGBT. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  According to what source? In which countries? — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I encourage you to read these several articles. When I mean that it's more widely recognized. I literally it's globally more acknowledged and recognized. Here are some articles to back up my argument.

  True Colors United

  The Atlantic

  Gay Center

  New York Times

  USA Today

  USF.edu

  Global News

This last one just explains that the acronym has expanded. My London Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose move per COMMONNAME. O.N.R. ^(talk) 03:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. There is significant movement toward LGBTQ, but we will have to wait a bit longer for it to displace LGBT. In specialist literature, this has already occurred, but not yet elsewhere. Urve (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This article has a huge amount of variations listed in bold, this seems unneeded to me, if all these variants need to be mentioned on Wikipedia maybe we can have an article named LGBT acronym variants or similar.★Trekker (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea! Dronebogus (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Would that be a list? — Tazuco 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussing variants is this purpose of this article; another article would be redundant. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It should probably have its own section, at least, so we don’t have the problem of “also known as A B C D E F G H I J K…” Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I'm not sure I'd agree with that, the purpose of this article is to give an overall view of this minority grouping, not to discuss nomenclature.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. I think an article on variants would make sense. Not sure how it would be "redundant". I have to fully disagree with Crossroads on that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I understand what those opposing this change are saying, but I would have to throw my weight behind changing it to LGBTQ, especially since it would be an indicator of improved inclusivity on here. Considering the continued problems on here when it comes to gender and racial bias of editors, and a need to make it clear that Wikipedia is a welcoming place for LGBTQ people, I'd say it is the least we can do to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place. Historyday01 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree and also want to add to that. As time as on the acronym is always going to change. But this shorten acronym is the current popular trending and widely used form. I do understand that the full acronym extends beyond LGBTQ, to LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+, and to be honest there are even more letters than that.

  To insure a more welcoming space. Many people across the world use and recognize the popular variant, LGBTQ. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and usage results shown by BilledMammal. Comments supporting seem to be based entirely on "inclusivity", but there is no basis in policy for making content decisions based on what is speculated to please certain demographics. Inclusivity is done through civility, nondiscrimination, etc. and a behavioral framework. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to LGBTQIA+. More inclusivity the better. Showiecz (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  This isn’t an inclusivity competition. If the only criterion was “maximum inclusion” then the best option would be something like LGBTQIAA2FHNBKNAPFO+++ which is obviously ridiculous because nobody uses that. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, Showiecz indirectly exemplified why this page shouldn't be moved just because of the need of being inclusive. We cannot move this page over and over again everytime a letter is added to the acronym. This move alone will affect thousands of pages at Category:LGBT. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose if you wanted to be more inclusive, you would have used "LGBT+" but you didn't. LGBTQI2+ would be better than LGBTQ -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have never heard of that term. Dronebogus (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  LGBT questioning/queer intersex two-spirit and plus others; like LGBTQ2 but with I and + added -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely not. It’s either a common expansion or not at all. Dronebogus (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  The even longer LGBTQIA2+ is well used [4][5][6][7][8] [9] -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  What about LGBTQ+? Adding the plus to the popular variant is still being accepting and inclusive while also recognizing the popular variant. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. This is not going to solve anything. LGBT is universally agreed upon but pretty much none of the other variations are; changing it to something else, even a relatively common one like LGBTQ or LGBT+, would just encourage more content disputes. 2. This isn’t based in policy, it’s basically WP:GREATWRONGS. It’s fine to choose a more “inclusive” acronym/term for internal purposes, but for encyclopedic purposes we should always go with the common, default name. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support I support the decision to expand the acronym. Reasoning being is because in numerous news outlets, publications, and all across media the acronym LGBTQ has been used. The letter Q has been added to help identify those that identify as queer or questioning their sexual orientation. The expansion of the acronym came into effect during the "2010's" decade. I also support moving the article to the more expanded article LGBTQIA. There are more letters added, but the popular shorter version LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ is often used to highlight the expansion. The expansion also came into effect when the mention of the Kinsey scale has been widely talked about. That has also been used throughout the "2010's" as well. There are also members that identify within the community that prefer to not use labels that's where the letter Q comes into play. The word Queer is also used for people that wish to not label their sexual orientation. Because times has changed and the acronym has expanded through various widespread media outlets. I think it is time we catch up with times.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMOMNAME and BilledMammal's WP:GTEST. Regarding inclusivity, our article titles are guided by accepted policy on the matter, not by what is most morally just. We aim to follow the trends set by reliable sources, not lead them. Endwise (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: as said better by others, our naming conventions are not based on what is morally appropriate in our own view, except that WP:COMMONNAME favors that we avoid "vulgar" names. In this case, I don't think the nominal exclusion of some LGBT+ individuals from the term "LGBT" rises to the level of being "vulgar". Nor is this really the appropriate place to litigate the issue—this article is specifically about LGBT as an acronym, and its etymology and those of related acronyms. It would be different at LGBT community, where we reference a community wider than its four letters at face value. But we should not forget the origin of the term gay as a political category referring to all people oppressed on the basis of gender or sexuality.
  As to inclusivity issues within our community, discussions are better had over how we materially exclude people on the basis of gender or sexuality, such as how permitted forms of bigoted anti-transgender speech on Wikipedia cause harm. This reality is more important than whether we claim to be inclusive. — Bilorv (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I do have a question/comment. What does everyone think about changing the title of the page to LGBTQ+? I would cause us to have another debate over the same topic. But I will be in favor of us having another debate about what title we should move the page to. Also, having a debate about whether or not the page should be move to expanded acronym or if we should even change it at all. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative of LGBTQ; note Google Trends and Google Search (~100 million more results). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding Google Trends, I think typically people are googling a single word on its own because they want to know what it means. I think it is evidence that more people want to know what "LGBTQ" means than what "LGBT" means (not surprising given LGBTQ entered society's lexicon more recently), but I don't think it's evidence that it is the word used more commonly. Endwise (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A for allies

The article currently claims that the + after the A in LGBTIQA+ could indicate a second A for allies, and cites a single university LGBT terms handbook as a source. I'd like to see more sources cited that show that this is actually a common interpretation of the + after the A, or that paragraph to be deleted since I would argue what one university handbook author thinks isn't notable enough to be included in the article. Looking forward to see what other people think! --Egefeyzi (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Remove "or an "SA" for "straight allies," as straight allies are not queer in any form. LittleApricot (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Bi & trans people had to fight for acceptance in the 90s. This article implies they just so happened to become more accepted over time which shows ignorance about bi & trans activism. Revision necessary. H-influenzae (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This article isn't about bi or trans people, it's about the *word* LGBT. You could raise your issue about another article, maybe, but this isn't the one. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

The last paragraph under variants mentions Canada and Toronto Pride.

>For a time the Pride Toronto organization used the much lengthier acronym LGBTTIQQ2SA, but appears to have dropped this in favour of simpler wording.[59] Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also criticized for using the 2SLGBTQQIA+ acronym.[60]

https://www.pridetoronto.com/?s=lgbt

A quick search of the Pride site shows 2SLGBTQIA+ or 2S/LGBTQIA+ as the most recent acronym, though the site is moving away from specific labels in much of its content. Could7927 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 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. SpinningCeres 01:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under the section named 'Variants', the paragraph related to Canada I would like to propose the following edits:

Depending on the (remove 'the') which organization is using the acronym, (add coma) the choice of acronym changes. Businesses and the CBC (*view note below) often simply employ LGBT as a proxy for any longer acronym, private activist groups often employ LGBTQ+,( See second note) whereas public health providers favour the more inclusive LGBT2Q+ to accommodate (see third note, please) twin spirited the federal government has adopted, across all departments, and encourages the use of the acronym 2SLGBTQI+, the '2S' designating two-spirited indigenous peoples. For a time the Pride Toronto organization used the much lengthier acronym LGBTTIQQ2SA, but appears to have dropped this in favour of simpler wording. to now align with the federal government in its use of the acronym 2SLGBTQI+. The Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also initially criticized mocked for by some right-wing personalities and social media users for his use of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ acronym. (**See fourth note for rationale for this suggested edit).

A 'clean' version of the paragraph, as per proposed edits would read:

Depending on which organization is using the acronym, the choice of acronym changes. Businesses often simply employ LGBT as a proxy for any longer acronym, whereas the federal government has adopted, across all departments, and encourages the use of the acronym 2SLGBTQI+, the '2S' designating two-spirited indigenous peoples. For a time, the Pride Toronto organization used the much lengthier acronym LGBTTIQQ2SA, but appears to now align with the federal government in its use of the acronym 2SLGBTQI+. The Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was initially mocked by some right-wing personalities and social media users for his use of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ acronym.

*Note on CBC: While the CBC seems to have widely used the acronym LGBT, as noted, this seems to no longer be the case, as recent articles have used 2SLGBTQI+. Further, while it operates at arm's length from the federal government, being a Crown Corporation, it is to worth mentioning (as an argument to remove the 'and the CBC' from above article), that the Government of Canada has announced: "...that the government will adopt and encourage the use of the 2SLGBTQI+ acronym". Usually, it follows that Crown Corporations would also adopt the acronym, as they have GBA+ analyses or the inclusion of pronouns in signature blocks, for instance.

**Note on private activist groups: Only one example was cited as reference to support this, whereas multiple private activist groups also use the more-inclusive 2SLGBTQI+, such as:

https://itgetsbettercanada.org/

https://egale.ca/

***Note on 'to accommodate': In Canada, 'accommodation' , especially in the context of public administration, refers to the Duty to Accommodate which is a legislative requirement for employers and service providers to enable full participation of people living with disabilities or impairments. Even if other suggested edits are not approved, I am adamant that this term should be modified, replaced by 'represent' or '

****Note on Justin Trudeau Criticism: The New York Post article referenced is titled 'mocked', first off. Secondly, the first paragraph states:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being mocked on social media after he published two posts that mention the latest woke iteration of an acronym for people with different sexual identities

Third, the article does not seem unbiased, in that it mentions no users supporting the use of the acronym. Fourth, the article does not mention Canadian political adversaries, advocacy groups or other stakeholders criticizing the PM for the use of the acronym, but only refers to the following, mostly American, right-wing personalities, or critics of 'so-called 'woke-culture', further hinting that the article is biased in its hyperbolic statement he was 'criticized'.

British rapper Nzube Olisaebuka Udezue,

American right-wing political commentator Matt Walsh,

a professor well-known as a vocal critic of social justice activism, Gad Saad

Conspiracy-theorist and American right-wing activist Luke Rudkowski (misspelled in article, but linked in article as being this guy) Wardsback.Poet (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Simplification proposal

Dear wiki colleagues,

Since, in first-order linear logic terms, human genders are either binary or non-binary, I believe that all terminology currently constructed around LGBT&+ types can, without prejudice, be subsumed under Non-binary Gender.

Aainitio (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Binary refers to there only being two genders.

A transgender individual, born male but transitioning to female, may identify as a woman. This person would be binary, though as a transgender person, they are represented under 'LGBTQ' and all its variants.

Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, can also all have gender identities that fit into a binary. You need to understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Wardsback.Poet (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Evolution of the acronym

There is no part about the evolution of the acronym. I’ve read it was originally GLBT (hence why the official foundation for LGBTQ+ is called GLBT) then became LGBT during the aid epidemic as gay men wanted to thank lesbian women for sheltering them during the violent anti-gay era of the USA. Wqnted to learn mmore about it, but nothing was written there on Wikipedia.. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Esteban, Essentially the entire article is about the evolution of the initialism (not "acronym"). If you read something different somewhere and want to add it to the article, please do, keeping in mind Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability of content, and the use of citations to reliable, secondary sources. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Asexual and Demisexual categories

Asexuals and demisexuals themselves are adamant that their identities aren't inherently LGBT, as evidenced by the fact that they push to have the initialism LGBT replaced with LGBTIA, LGBTQ+ and so on. Given that this article is titled LGBT and not LGBTQIA or LGBT+, I think having asexual and demisexual as categories is balderdash. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This article also covers those variants, and arguably LGBT also tends to implicitly include those as seen as part of the LGBT community. I think the categories should be included. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If this article includes coverage of identities not included in the initialism LGBT, perhaps you should submit a request to consider moving the article. (The article was previously attempted to be moved to "LGBTQIA2S" but that was reverted.) As the article stands, including identities like asexual and demisexual imho takes away from the focus of the article. Tdmurlock (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In the meanwhile while there's discussion and an attempt on consensus, can I ask that we preserve the current status quo please whether it be this page? In due course, I agree that a WP:RM#CM or an RfC may be a good option for changing, for instance, to 'LGBT' to 'LGBT+' throughout titles, infoboxes, categories, etc, but I think it's unnecessarily disruptive and not in keeping with the contentious topics rule to mass change pages as you've done. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think the article should be moved to LGBT+, LGBTQIA2S or another initialism, I encourage you to spearhead that discussion. Remember WP:BOLD! As the article is titled, however, the inclusion of non-LGBT identities risks turning this page into a trivia magnet. Tdmurlock (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So we've now gone from a discussion on two categories to the entire scope of the article...

Anyway: No, it doesn't. It is only natural for an article abiut the term LGBT to also include variants of this acronym. The history of this term's scope is the very essence of its notability. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I think it unnecessarily... trivialises (haha) other gender identities and sexualities to characterise inclusion here as trivia/miscellaneous. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tdmurlock now that I've had some time to think on this and for the temperature of the discussion to cool a little - I'd like to seek help from you in workshopping a neutrally phrased RFC on WT:LGBT on whether wikiprojects, pages, categories, etc. should take "LGBT" to mean "LGBT+" broadly inclusive of all queer, asexual, and other non-cishet gender identities and sexual orientations, or whether they should just refer to the four categories in the acronym, more narrowly defined. I think this will be less disruptive than mass renaming everything that has "LGBT" in the title to "LGBT+", or dropping content because it's not within the stated title "LGBT". I think this should address both the discussion ongoing here, as well as on WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Queer categories and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Genderqueer categories. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lizthegrey, I apologize for my tone earlier in the thread. I would love to assist you. I admit I might not exactly be the model of WP:NPOV but I would certainly try to be fair. Tdmurlock (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a stab at some proposed text:

Should "LGBT" in the titles and text of articles, categories, and WikiProjects such as this one be interpreted:

• Narrowly, default to LGBT means "LGBT" will be construed as Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender only (excluding queer, agender, asexual, etc.) unless otherwise specified, and require renaming or specifying case by case to broaden; content outside those 4 categories can be removed
• Broadly by default means "LGBT" will implicitly include all non-cisgender and non-heterosexual sexualities, gender identities, and communities, without further qualification or need for renames, unless otherwise specified e.g. that LGBT and LGBT+ can be synonymously used; content should be kept in articles
• Narrowly, default existing LGBT to LGBT+ with mass rename of pages from LGBT to LGBT+ for explicit clarity, with opt-out or rename back for pages that should be more narrowly construed

Lizthegrey (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

-imho "excluding queer, agender, asexual, etc." is vague and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. if one defines trans as "people who's gender identity does not match their AGAB", agender people and other nonbinary gender identities are certainly inherently included under the T in LGBT. I would personally argue in favor of such a definition. Similarly, I think queer should be mentioned as a slur that some lgbt people choose to reclaim but I'm skeptical of including non-lgbt people in the definition of queer, as initialisms like LGBTQ seem to suggest. The broadest definition of queer ("non-normative sexuality") includes, for example, fundamentalist mormon polygamists and yiff, neither I would say are inherent components of the LGBT community, much like asexuality.

-I also find the second category a bit confusing. '"LGBT" will implicitly include all non-cisgender and non-heterosexual sexualities, gender identities, and communities, without further qualification or need for renames, unless otherwise specified e.g. that LGBT and LGBT+ can be synonymously used' What specific gender identities/sexualities are you referring to that aren't sufficiently included in LGBT? Tdmurlock (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

At issue I think of this disagreement I think we're having and trying to elaborate on is whether asexual and broad, non-specific, pan/queer identities are included in "LGBT"; I feel like the answer is probably yes for LGBT+, and ambiguous for LGBT (unless it's clear that LGBT is meant narrowly rather than as a synonym for LGBT+), thus the editing back and forth we've been having. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that pansexuals, omnisexuals and so on don't need a + to be included in the LGBT community, because imho pansexual and omnisexual are subsets of bisexual. If bisexuals are attracted to people of the same gender and different genders, with or without a preference, then the meaning of bisexual compared to omni and pan are at the least isomorphic if not indistinguishable. Asexual and aromantic inclusion in the LGBT community, on the other hand, I view as being contingent on whether they experience non-platonic attraction to people of the same gender, and thus they would not inherently be included. Tdmurlock (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that's really fascinating to unpack. Do you see agender people as falling into the transgender category, or does someone have to identify with a specific gender that's not their assigned gender to fall under trans to you? (I hope you see where I'm going with this argument...) Lizthegrey (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that agender people need to identify with a specific gender to qualify as trans, rejecting AGAB is enough for me, personally. So whereas imho agender people are included in the lgbt community inherently under the T (because they don't identify with their AGAB), cis asexuals, demisexuals, and aromantics (and so on) aren't inherently because those identities don't intrinsically imply attraction to people of the same gender. Tdmurlock (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah. the way I unpack that argument is that ace people are LGBT+ because they reject the idea of exclusive sexual attraction to the "opposite" gender (by having no attraction, or non-sexual attraction etc). I hope that explains why I favour inclusion of asexual people in "LGBT" (at least when broadly construed) Lizthegrey (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the logic to your opinion, but imho it breaks down a bit when one considers that, whereas nonbinary people, including agender people, like trans people in general, broadly experience transphobia, the prejudice that asexuals argue they experience ("aphobia") has nothing in common with the prejudice against same-gender attraction (homophobia) that gay people, lesbians, and bisexuals experience. In fact, many of them go a step further and argue that non-asexual same gender attracted people experience "allosexual privilege" which is a concept that I would argue is an attempt to whitewash homophobia and is actively at odds with the basic meaning of the LGBT initialism. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The number of pages with titles containing LGBT is not that large. We could simply review them by hand and change the LGBT in most titles to LGBT+ Oski (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think adding two categories in any way takes away from the focus of the article. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that asexual category is enough, no need for the demisexual category. But that's my perspective. Xdtp (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Evolution of GLB to LGB to LGBT to LGBTQ

The original acronym GLB was used the most until around 1991-1992 when it was overtaken by LGB, which was overtaken by LGBT around 1998-1999, which is now being overtaken by LGBTQ. 71.233.188.130 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know of any scholarly coverage of this? If so, maybe there is something we can say about it. If not, it is not for us to dig into ourselves. Personally, I had never heard "LGB" before it was recently adopted by some anti-trans groups. It might be interesting to cover whether it was ever a "real" thing prior to their use of it. DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's something that should come from scholarly studies, not our feelings. That said, when I was at university in the mid-1990s it had recently changed from LGB to LGBT. Outside of Wikipedia, I tend to use LGBTQ+, but LGBT and LGBT+ are the terms generally used across the Movement and I just can't justify the effort that would be involved in gaining consensus here to try to change that. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Alphabet mafia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alphabet mafia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § Alphabet mafia until a consensus is reached. Xdtp (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Change "For the community it references" to "For the community"

I.e. drop the "it references" as currently it suggests that the this page and the community page are about the exact same. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I'd like to preface this close by saying that this is not a vote. There is a clear numerical majority in support, however quite a few !votes in support have been deducted for various reasons.

Extended content

Supporters argued Google Trends usage, however opposers contested that Trends does not show usage in reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME), just usage in general. An opposer argued that LGBT was actually more common on Trends, however that was shot down by the fact that Trends is language agnostic. It was also argued that Ngrams & Scholar showed support for LGBTQ, however that was rebutted by the fact that it was a small one and we should wait a bit more per WP:CRYSTAL.

Finally, I'd like to say 2 things: (a) nothing is set in stone, this can always be revisited, and (b) I have carefully looked over this RM and am unlikely to be persuaded. As such, I forfeit the requirement to discuss my close with me before listing at move review. Thank you, (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

---

LGBT → LGBTQ – This Google Trend comparison indicates a higher appearance of "LGBTQ" compared to "LGBT". I would say this shall be moved, no? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Support move to LGBTQ or I'd suggest the move to LGBTQ+ so it's explicitly inclusive of other identities of the wider LGBTQIA2S+ community. Per the latest ngrams raw 2019 LGBTQ has overtaken LGBT as of the latest data point(2019) with the trend showing an increase for LGBTQ and decrease of LGBT since especially 2016 onwards. - Raladic (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Previous requests suggesting this title can be found at /Archive 2#Requested move 14 February 2018 ("consensus not to move") and /Archive 3#Requested move 28 May 2022 ("not moved for now"). I closed one of the previous discussions but have no particular opinion about this request. Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to do my own research on this, but as an early comment: we should not be relying on Google Trends at all. It's a measure of what internet users are searching for, but it's not a measure of usage in sources (let alone reliable ones). The best evidence here will be collections of usage in the best available sources, and the most expedient evidence will be from Google Ngrams, hits in Google News, and other aggregated source numbers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Google Trends also doesn't seem able to distinguish between "LGBTQ" and "LGBTQ+" (unless I am doing something wrong!) – but both versions of the acronym have their own adherents. My personal impression is that both variations are more widely used now than they were a few years ago, but I couldn't say whether either is now more common than LGBT either in general discourse or in reliable sources. (I also increasingly see LGBTQIA and LGBTQIA+ but suspect both are less common still). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and WikiProject Sociology have been notified of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to get counts based on Google News and Google Scholar? If so, I feel that those might be a better guide. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Support: Terms for sexual and gender minorities have evolved very rapidly in the last 60 years, so it's a little more awkward to rely on citations, as age will affect them more rapidly than events in current affairs for example. It was only when I was at university in the 1990s that the LGB Society became the LGBT Society. While ordinarily I would agree that Google News and Google Scholar would be simple to use as gauges, it is also worth ensuring those counts are split by year of publication.

I would suggest we are several years past the point that WP:COMMONNAME would justify changing LGBT to LGBTQ+, but any change here should simultaneously be applied to other articles such as the LGBT rights in (territory name) series. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment If this is moved will every single category be moved to match it? What about other articles on the topic at hand?★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would say yes; consistency is important (and part of the guideline at WP:AT). But, as I mentioned below just a moment so, that's something that bots can do for us relatively easily. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. As of March 2023, the AP Stylebook tends toward LGBTQ+: (twitter).

LGBTQ+ (adj.)

Acceptable in all references for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer and or questioning, plus other sexual and gender minorities. Fewer or additional letters can be used to be more inclusive or in quotations and names of organizations and events, such as LGBT or LGBTQIA. Use of LGBTQ+ is best used as a collective adjective: "Walters joined the LGBTQ+ business association." Avoid using LGBTQ+ to describe individuals, and don't default to LGBTQ+ if discussing a more specific population: "a bisexual advocacy group", "a transgender health program".

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment- There is a strong claim that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, but I think that issue of changing all articles with LGBT in the title might be a pretty big change to Wikipedia. Another reason why it might not be a good idea is that it adds complication that is not necessary: LGBT and LGBTQ+ really mean the same thing — one term is not really more inclusive than the other, it just lists out more identities under the LGBT umbrellas. However, I do think the common name argument is compelling enough on its own, but the consequence of changing all pages with that title, and presumably the content of them, is a pretty big reason not to undertake the task.

aaronneallucas (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think all the downstream changes of article and category names is not such a big deal — that's precisely the kind of task that bots and software are good at.

Unless there's a technical reason that it would be prohibitively disruptive to do, I'm not sure we should focus on the concomitant downstream changes but rather what's the right thing to do. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

On the technicalities of such a move, we recently moved sex reassignment surgery to gender-affirming surgery, which had a knock on effect on some related sub-articles and I think categories. It wasn't an issue then, and WP:C2D should allow us to do a speedy move of any categories that would be impacted by this move. I'm pretty sure there's a bot already set up that would do all of the hard work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support LGBTQ+ per above, perhaps most accurate name.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment But LGBT is more common worldwide according to Google Trends. -Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not too familiar with how to customise Google Trends searches; is it possible to restrict the comparison to English-language searches and if that makes a difference? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Google Trends is language agnostic. All that matters is what you type in as the terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's my point. We don't want language agnostic in this case; we want to know about English-language usage. Looking at the maps showed Latin America being strongly in favour of LGBT rather than LGBTQ — I have heard before that queer doesn't work well as a term in many languages —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see. It didn't occur to me that "LGBT" would be a non-English search term, but I'm sure it's possible. Either way, as I said above, Google Trends evidence is uncompelling. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• This move request is going nowhere, at least wrt to any votes based on Google Trends, as all those votes must be entirely excluded from consideration. Google Trends is by definition an unreliable source since it represents search terms from any user (anonymous, to boot!) who wishes to use Google to search. Furthermore, even a very lopsided result in Google Trends *still* means nothing (other than the fact that people are searching for that term). If you want to make a change request, fine, but please read WP:MOVE and WP:AT and base your arguments on policy, such as how article titles are chosen, and not on irrelevant nonsense like Google Trends which counts for nothing. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, a reasonable amount of the discussion above has also been about policy and WP:AT — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Support LGBTQ: there are more Google Scholar results for LGBTQ than LGBT, and only a handful for LGBTQ+. And given that LGBTQ is a newer term than LGBT it stands to reason that the gap will continue to widen. I know this isn't a perfect solution either but it's at least a better representation of RS than Google Trends. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose According to both Ngrams and (Worldwide, not simply United States, as nom used) Google Trends, the "Q" variant is less commonly used. Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. And, as pointed out in the previous discussion, if COMMONNAME was totally ignored in favor of inclusivity, there's the discussion of why it isn't LGBTQ+ or LGBT2Q+. It will just lead to more and more being tacked on and making things more confusing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  LGBTQ has overtaken LGBT on ngrams as of the latest data (which is 2019) if you look at the raw data (smoothing 0 -ngrams Raladic (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  A tiny bit of time in which one has overtaken the other, is not sufficient in my opinion to make a real argument it should be moved. There's a distinct possibility that years down the line, it will be the quite obvious common name, but it's too soon to make such judgements. The only proof nom has offered is a Google Trends chart that was skewed only towards United States usage and ignored worldwide usage, and by that metric, it is too soon to move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  The trend line in the ngrams very clearly shows a stark increase for LGBTQ and decrease for LGBT past 2016, with no reason to expect a reversal, but also we work off the actual data, which it has overtaken it, even if it's a small difference, regardless of if we tried looking into the WP:CRYSTALBALL.

  Another case that LGBT is no longer the common name is that the United Nations, which represent most humans on the planet use LGBTQI+ to refer to the community - un.org Raladic (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the Q and/or the plus (+) in the acronym. Not just because are more trendy/popular in the searches, but because of the subjects in the article. It's not just about four identities, it mentions many others. MikutoH (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support for adding Q, with or without a plus. No need to methodically rename all the other articles and categories. That could be handled on a case by case basis. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator; we're not the first to adopt change at the bleeding edge, we are the last, and follow the reliable sources. The data does show a shift towards LGTBTQ, as the ngrams data link above indicates, but it's almost a dead heat. The claim that Scholar data shows a clear lead for LGBTQ doesn't hold up, although we seem to be in a transitional period heading in that direction. I expect there will be more clarity on this point in a couple of years, and a move request then will likely succeed (just a guess). See § Let's look at the data in the Discussion section. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's look at the data

Will those making claims based on searches please show your work. (For starters, all claims based on Google Trends are invalid, so please don't show your work on those, they are irrelevant and no amount of detail will change that.) The claim based on ngrams is very narrowly accurate, and so is the trend line, but "past history is no guarantee of future performance" and the two values are extremely close, so it's doubtful that any conclusion can be drawn based on ngrams at this moment. It looks likely that if the trend continues, LGBTQ will demonstrate a clear lead over LGBT in a few years, but we don't have data to support that yet; time will tell. With respect to Google scholar, claims are made that there are "more.. results for LGBTQ than LGBT", but no data is shown and I cannot repeat those results; rather, I see a more nuanced shift towards LGBTQ in recent years (just as ngrams does) with no clear and overwhelming winner (yet). If we restrict Scholar results to the past five years (since 2017 to be exact) and to results which use only one term and not both of them, we have: 68,700 for LGBT and 58,400 for LGBTQ. Checking since 2019, the margin switches significantly in favor of LGBTQ, with 39,000 to 32,000 for LGBT. But if we limit to since 2022, the margin narrows again, to 17,400 for LGBTQ and 16,300 for LGBT. Additional tests should be done in books to see if they show the same pattern. My guess is that if we repeat these tests in two years, the gap should widen enough to say that LGBTQ is more common, but it seems like at this moment we're still in the transitional period and the data doesn't tell an incontrovertible story that one is significantly more common than the other. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBTQIA+ is the updated term, LGBT is an obsolete term

• LGBT is an obsolete term from the 1980s, it has been long time ago substituted by the most accurate and inclusive term LGBTQIA+ See the definitions in the following universities:

LGBTQIA+ in Princeton: https://www.gsrc.princeton.edu/lgbtqia-101

LGBTQIA+ in South Dakota university: https://www.sdstate.edu/office-multicultural-affairs-accessibility/lgbtqia-basic-terms-and-definitions

LGBTQIA+ in the university of San Francisco: https://lgbt.ucsf.edu/education-training

https://lgbt.ucsf.edu/lgbtqia

Why this article has not been redirected to LGBTQIA+? and even worse why keep patching it with the additions keeping the article as it was in the 2010 and keeping the article as it the term is a mental illness?

Why the terms Queer, Asexuality, Intersexual have been kept out of the definition all this time?--Leglish (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

Could we vote to replace the LGBT article for the LGBTQIA+ article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQIA%2B&oldid=1150969494

--Leglish (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As this may span much more than just this article (since there are many derived sub-articles), it might be a discussion topic that should be raised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies or maybe even a Wikipedia wide Request for Comments. Raladic (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The simplest way would be to change the title of this and other LGBT+ pages, replacing LGBT by LGBT+. (The "+" sign in LGBT+ includes, among others, the Q, I, and A.) Oski (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, when the queer community established an acronym… it simply was a bad idea. With so many ‘new’ genders appearing randomly, maybe they could have chosen a simple word.

Anyway, we should just keep the original acronym, because people just know it well. Maybe we could just add a ‘+’ sign to ‘include’ other genders.

Because, if we start adding more and more letters, where will the acronym end? Josan07 ya (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

LGBTQIA2S+ is the mnemonic of the countless affirmative ways in which people choose to self-identify. WP continued use of LGBT is discriminatory and not inclusive.

LGBTQIA+ in Portland Art Museum: https://portlandartmuseum.org/learn/programs-tours/object-stories/powerful-self-lgbtqia2s-lives-today/

Timeline: Starbucks history of LGBTQIA2+ inclusion: https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2022/starbucks-pride-a-long-legacy-of-lgbtq-inclusion/ dmode (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

At very least, LGBTQIA+ should appear bolded in the lead with an explanation, and the explanation of LGBTQ can be compressed into it. This article is basically several years out-of-date.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There's plenty of references in this thread and the RM debate below, so it should be relatively straightforward to do, if someone has capacity at the moment? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

'LGBTQIA+' is already bolded in section § Variants, and it is not the only one that is. Not everything can appear in the lead, and this particular topic probably has more alternate synonyms than any other topic I can think of. As for "out-of-date", a move request was just entertained a few weeks ago (that is to say, *after* the date of the OP in this very section) and another one is premature at this point. Mathglot (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 May 2023 and 10 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jc12016 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jc12016 (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Holding place for data on acronyms

I don't want to reopen the recent RM debate — personally, despite preferring the move recommendation, I would prefer we don't reopen the discussion for at least 6 months.

But it feels sensible to have a spot on the Talk: page here to collate stats about use of the different acronyms, so that we can easily find references next time the topic does come up. Please feel free to add recent data here:

• Today (28 July 2023), YouGov published results of a survey of 969 “LGBT+ Britons” between 30 May and 17 June 2023. The largest group (29%) using LGBTQ+, 21% using LGBT , 13% using LGBTQ without the plus. [Refs: Tweet (with graph), summary page, detail PDF] — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternative terms - According to whom? Isn't it being non-neutral? WP:POV

Queer - According to whom do Many people have looked for a generic term to replace the numerous existing initialisms?

According to whom do Queer has many negative connotations to older people who remember the word as a taunt and insult, and such (negative) usage of the term continues?

According to whom do Many younger people also understand queer to be more politically charged than LGBT?

If they are referenced from an article, they should've been written in such a way that provides view of articles. The present form looks like the POV of author.

Also many other sections in alternative terms seem this way.

The variants section seems to be appearing with the views of the editor and don't appear to be neutral

Please note that this a polite submission and comments are invited on how editors can make this neutral and convey if the tag is a mistake Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a POV problem here. None of those statements are particularly controversial. Maybe the last sentence merits attribution but even that is a stretch. All of it is neutral and validly referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

hey you should change the flag to the progress flag and include more lgbt identitys sexuallitys and more HunterLgbt (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There's no consensus for many of these changes, and you also need to be specific about the changes you want to be made before requesting an edit. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

" LGBT (initialism)"?

Not yet starting this as a proper move proposal, but when I arrived on this page, I was surprised that the article is specifically about the initialism, rather than being about the community itself or queerness in general. What do other editors here think of moving around one or multiple article titles, so that readers arrive on an article detailing what LGBT is, rather than an article about the history of the term? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). There is a consensus against the original proposal of moving this article and having a dab at this title. No prejudice against a new discussion that focuses on either moving a draft space concept dab to this title or editorially changing this page so it becomes a broad concept dab. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

---

LGBT → LGBT (initialism) – I want to propose moving LGBT (disambiguation) to LGBT, linking to LGBT community, LGBT culture, and LGBT (initialism) (which would be this article after the move). I do not believe readers are looking for the history of LGBT as terminology when they are searching "LGBT". A simple Google News search of "LGBT" gives us articles on same-sex marriage, violence against LGBT people, and the experience of being LGBT; it does not give articles about usage and criticisms of the umbrella term itself. I don't believe the terminology is the primary topic of "LGBT". To wax poetic, "we are more than a label applied to us." This might be in the spirit of point 2 on WP:DICTIONARY. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose While I agree someone searching for LGBT is likely looking for related topics, this is all currently referenced by disambiguation and LGBT#See_also where other articles can be added. LGBT itself is often augmented by + to recognise the myriad other letters added - LGBTQQIP2SA is one I have seen, e.g. here. The purpose of initialisism and acronyms is to facilitate memorisation, but long strings like this have given rise to ridicule, and slurs like "The Alphabet People". LGBT was also a neutral alternative to 'gay' which became a pejorative in the 1990's applied to objects and ideas, "That's so gay". I would support a rename to LGBT+ Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "LGBT"/"LGBT+"/"LGBTQ" etc, the complicated umbrella term, is a notable subject on its own. I don't think it's helpful to keep the term itself as the primary topic of "LGBT". "See also" is at the bottom of the page, an immediate disambiguation would be more helpful, if you agree that someone searching for LGBT is likely looking for the broader concept of identity/community/culture. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to lose the people looking for the present LGBT page, by sending them somewhere else so they have to google to find the initialism and its history.

As an umbrella term, LGBT as it is, is useful as a starting place to the myriad LGBT+ articles that include religion, politics, discrimination, violence, criminalisation and more. An alternative to a rename of this article is to build short referential sections in the current main article, that link to all these organisations. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. There are plenty of sources that talk about "LGBT" (or a variant) and that are discussing the initialism itself. Those sources are outnumbered greatly by ones that talk about "LGBT" the concept, the grouping of people, the community. LGBT community is by far the primary topic by usage. It's also the primary topic by long-term significance. Regardless of what term was used in the past or will be used in the future, non-exclusively-heterosexual people and not-entirely-cisgender people will continue to be a significant group. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

But who is going to type LGBT (initialism) as a search term? And if LGBT is going to redirect there anyway, as [[LGBT+]] currently does, what is the advantage? And what of people who are searching for the initialism, but never heard of the term 'initialism'? Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

LGBT (term) might also be an option. I'm sure there's also wikilinks to the term in the more important articles; users will find their way to the article on the history of the term even when it isn't the primary topic for "LGBT". ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think both LGBT and LGBT+—and myriad other pages I'm sure—should redirect to the article about the people, the community. It can and should have a hatnote that points to the intialism/term page. I'm fine with either term or initialism as the disambiguator. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

TBH I would be no less surprised if people searched for 'LGBT (term)'. To me it is analogous to having a google for 'Automotives' land on a particular brand instead of the generic header article defining what 'automotive' is. People in the first instance would google for LGBT, and it should be up to them which sub articles they go to thereafter. Ideally, the main Wikipedia article will be the first hit, after which they can see for themselves how the land lies. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently, it is like if "automotive" was an article purely dedicated to the etymology of the word "automotive", describing how language evolved to "car" in English while a word like "auto" is still common in other languages, and what words people are considering for "self-driving cars." That is basically what the current article titled "LGBT" is doing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but nor should "automotive" branch to an article about Rolls-Royce, or an article about the Automotive Community. The growing consensus here is that the LGBT article should move to the new title you suggest, only if a new Broad Concept LGBT article takes its place, with summarising sections and a hatnote for each LGBT topic. There is no rush whatsoever for this, since we already have disambiguation and See Also in the current page. Sending LGBT browsers to a particular article, such as LGBT Community (already flagged as being mostly about the USA) creates another problem, likely to result in another request for a redirect. Why not LGBT History or LGBT Activism or LGBT Politics, for example? There needs to be an umbrella article, one of whose sections can summarise the initialism with a hatnote to the current, renamed article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - There are 46,566 links to LGBT which is the main article people expect to land on. (It's likely high in the top of the most linked articles on Wikipedia). We do already have the links to the disambiguation at the top, which is sufficient.

The page is more than just the initialism, but also some of the background and history and the first starting point that most people would go from. Raladic (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, there being a high number of links here does not indicate that this is the correct target; many of the links could be intended for other LGBT-related articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at "what links here", I checked the first 5, last 5, and a random set of 5 in the middle. Zero of them are about the initialism. Most seem to be about the concept of community exactly, or a subtopic thereof. I dispute that the main topic of this article is actually "the main article people expect to land on", topic-wise. Is there enough here as an overview to serve as a simple "overview" article and then off-load the initialism? DMacks (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The current LGBT community article has already been flagged as being mostly about the US, so if LGBT lands readers there, someone looking for LGBT pride or LGBT rights by country or territory or LGBT history will still have to sort through a minefield of DAB and ‘See also’. I would support rename of this article only if a Broad Concept Article is created, that allows readers to select from the plethora of related articles. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel the problem here is that a WP:BROADCONCEPT article may be needed, while the current one is totally focused on the term itself and its history. Therefore I'd probably be more comfortable supporting a move if there was a draft of an overarching article, rather than making the main page a disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, one that would retain the titular ‘LGBT’ or ‘LGBT+’ (my preference), with summarising Sections that link to all the subordinate articles, one of which could indeed by ‘LGBT (initialism)’ to which this article could then move. The gateway to all this should be the broad concept article ‘LGBT’ that you suggest (and mooted in my comments above). If there is consensus, I will add a request for the article to be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The main concept of "LGBT" seems like the broad idea/high-level topic, not the minutae and history of the initialism itself. I think (term) is a better disambiguation token than (initialism), as it seems closer to lay-language and less technical-sounding (simple is good). Given we are having this discussion now, I wouldn't want to wait until someone gets around to writing the new article, since there seems to be an identified problem with the current name and a renaming would resolve it. I would rather it be an article, however stubby, than a DAB page. DMacks (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that’ll be sending everyone who arrives via ‘LGBT’ to a Community sub-article preferred by the OP, and the response rate here so far isn’t big enough to generate consensus for that. Someone who googles ‘LGBT’ and arrives at Wikipedia, may not want to go to the Community page, nor indeed any particular page, they may just want to research what is to be found in Wikipedia on the topic. By all means, create a stub for now that does the directing, but without that sort of a gateway, a move of this article to a name that no-one is going to search for, and that strands or misdirects readers (is anyone going to type ‘LGBT (initialism)’ in a google search in the first place?) isn’t going to improve the encyclopaedia. Given that there is already a hat-note and LGBT#See also in this article to serve this purpose in the interim, there should be no rush to strand readers entering via ‘LGBT’ while someone creates the gateway. Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)s

  I spot-checked 15 inbound links. Zero of them actually should be pointing to the discussion of the acronym. So landing here from an intentional direct link is a head-scratcher, even if it's easy to get back on track via clicking the hat-note link (though that itself might only lead to a DAB). Having a DAB directly here (until someone writes a proper overview article) means readers are more likely to be able to get where they should be more easily. That, and having someone typing "LGBT" not going to an article that is less likely to be their intended topic, are examples of WP:ASTONISH, and why a less-common or sub-aspect is not appropriate as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC page. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we changed this to a DAB instead of a (new) broad article page, we would have to update 46,000 links that would all suddenly point to a DAB page that would need fixing since we don't link to DABs perWP:INTDAB.

  So I think instead of the current move proposal, instead, someone needs to create a new Draft WP:BROADCONCEPT article, which once we are satisfied as being a good replacement for the current article, then we can move this current one about the initialism to an initialism page. Raladic (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is the best solution, and I have posted an AfC request, linked to further down this thread. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  "have to update 46,000 links" is exactly the point. The vast majority of them already do need to be updated. Having them point to a DAB flags them for review so someone can figure out where they actually should point instead of continuing to point to wrong or letting editors easily add even more inbound links that are probably wrong. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• AfC - I have created a new article request under the heading [[LGBT+]] for the Broad Concept Article, which includes a link to this discussion. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment as proposer – After reading everyone's thoughts, I personally think it would be best if "LGBT" redirected to LGBT community; it does feel like the most appropriate target for searches to go to. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per WP:ISATERMFOR unless someone can identify a different article about the broad concept. The lead section should be rephrased so the article says it is about the category of people rather than the initialism. LGBT culture and LGBT community are more about the culture and social movement than the group of people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  ISATERMFOR (thanks for finding that!) is pretty much the reason for this proposal; I don't think the current article can or should be restructured to be about the broad concept. Not without trimming out three-fourth of the content, and I think the term is separately notable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what is being suggested. The existing article about initialism doesn't need to be rewritten, but if 'LGBT' branches to highly specific article, such as LGBT Community (already flagged as being mostly about the USA), that is kicking the can down the road. The growing consensus here is that the LGBT article should move to the new title you suggest, only if a new Broad Concept LGBT article takes its place, with summarising sections and a hatnote for each LGBT topic, one of which would be LGBT Initialism. There is no rush whatsoever for this, since we already have disambiguation and See Also in the current page. Sending LGBT browsers to a particular article, such as LGBT Community creates another problem, likely to result in another request for a redirect. Why not LGBT History, or LGBT Activism or LGBT Politics, for example? There needs to be an umbrella article, one of whose sections can summarise the initialism with a hatnote to the current, renamed article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Sounds like we might need a draft then! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have already set up a request under AfC in the comments above. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. See WP:COMMONNAME. LGBT is a generic term also. TheLatinNerd (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, but the idea of a broad concept article is a good one, and might change my vote if the proposal were altered to rename this article to LGBT (term) instead. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose disambiguation per WP:DABCONCEPT. I wouldn't be opposed to making LGBT community or LGBT culture primary, but this term is more or less unambiguous (like Kansas City: "a city in the general vicinity of the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers"), so we just need to pick one of the articles to be the primary DABCONCEPT article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  You begin by saying you're opposed to a DABCONCEPT article and conclude by saying you're in favour of having one. To be clear, the proposed DABCONCEPT article is to be a directory with summarising paragraphs for all existing LGBT-related articles (perhaps kicked off by just copying the Lede for each), with hatnotes to the Main Article for each, and as such, I have already posted an AfC request in my AfC comment above. LGBT community, as already twice stated above, is mainly about the US, and I frankly don't see that any drilled-down LGBT topic as less problematic than the current initialism article which is the primary hit for an LGBT search, However, if you can adduce such an article that already exists, by all means, post in reply. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yup misread their comment, they are opposed to your current move proposal to change the existing LGBT article to a pure DAB page, but not to an actual broad concept article that could replace it in the future.

  You have said a few times now that you've requested an AfC for this, but until someone actually creates such an article, your current move proposal as it stands is a no based in the consensus. Raladic (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, I am not proposing to change the existing article to a DAB, I am supporting the proposal to replace it with a BroadConcept article, and only then, for the existing article be moved to the title proposed by the OP. My AfC directs readers back to this discussion, and since you mention consensus, that is currently a majority Opposed to the move of 'LGBT' to 'LGBT (initialism)'. There is not currently a consensus one way or the other for the BroadConcept proposal. That may require that this move proposal be reposted with that as the lead argument. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "summarising paragraphs for all existing LGBT-related articles", our Outline of LGBT topics appears to be a few hundred entries. DMacks (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, that looks like the page ‘LGBT’ should redirect to, and this article should then change to the name requested by the OP. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh the outline is not bad, though perhaps even a bit too broad. If its lead section were expanded more to describe LGBT to some capacity, that would feel like a fine target, yes. I think I like having an article more, tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yet another solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft discussion

• I've created a draft for what a broad-concept article might look like. I'm getting excited at the potential here. It still needs a lot of prose and probably some restructuring, but it's a start. You're all invited to try to help fill it out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's a great idea! I do think we have a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. Obviously, we can't move that page here in its current state, or even !vote on it without knowing what it will look like. However, that means you'll have to spend all this time working on an article that isn't even certain to be used, which would be a shame. (The former DABCONCEPT article on China, now buried under the page history for Chinese civilization, was probably one of the greatest collective wastes of editor resources of all time.) That said, I will offer my tentative support, and if there's sufficient indication of interest from other !voters that might be enough reassurance for you to flesh it out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the risk. It's unclear to me if people opposing the proposal are opposing purely on the exact wording or on the ideas presented here in general. I would love to hear from people like @Chrisdevelop:, @Raladic:, @LilianaUwU:, @TheLatinNerd:, and @Necrothesp: whether they dislike this idea as much as the original proposal. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, my opposition above was just against the proposal to move it to be a DAB page, no one looking for LGBT, LGBTQIA+ or variants of the initialism wants to land in a DAB page, they need to land on a real page thst gives them an overview of what it represents.

  So if we do make this draft workable to be that then I would support it replace the current page which could then instead focus on just the term and the evolution thereof.

  We should probably for the time being close the existng move discussion though, since this draft won't be done fast presumably. Raladic (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the existing Outline of LGBT topics article already fulfills the Broad Concept Article requirements, moreover it‘s comprehensively linked to every LGBT article under the sun. Its Lede could perhaps be fleshed out, and each of the major headings could have a summarising paragraph added, but I don‘t think the draft in its present form proposed by the OP is anywhere near as comprehensive, and creates ‘yet another’ LGBT article. A browser who types ‘LGBT’ into the Wikipedia search bar who is taken to Outline of LGBT topics will be able to find anything they want, including ‘LGBT initialism’. So, I propose moving Outline of LGBT topics to [[LGBT]]. At the same time, the existing LGBT article can move to [[LGBT (initialism)]] as originally proposed by the OP. This can be accomplished in a matter of minutes in three steps:

1. Move the current ‘LGBT’ to ‘LGBT (initialism)’ per this proposal

2. Move the current ‘Outline of LGBT topics’ to the newly vacated ‘LGBT’ space

3 Add ‘LGBT (initialism)’ to the list of articles in the newly moved-to ‘LGBT’.

From then, all will be well, and editors can continue to work on the moved article as a Broad Concept Article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:BROADCONCEPT is very clear that it is an actual article explaining the actual concepts between the term itself and how related articles relate to it. The current Outline of LGBT topics is basically a DAB page with just links to various articles and does not satisfy that. Raladic (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The outline seems like too much of an accumulation of cruft without prioritization, and it should perhaps be allowed to continue to exist in that form. A broad concept article should be something different from that – more introductory in nature. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Which brings us back to whether the existing LGBT article shouldn't simply be explanded into a Broad Concept Article, rather than moved. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not make that the first target though? If I went into any other encyclopedia, the first thing I would want to see would be an index to everything in it on the topic Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We generally use sidebar or bottom page templates for indexes of related topic articles, embedded into the related topics, which serve as much better navigational aids than list articles, unless someone is looking for a WP:Stand-alone lists article which is typically titled "list of X". Raladic (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Since we don’t know what someone typing just ‘LGBT’ into the search field is looking for, we shouldn’t presume they’re looking for the US LGBT Community, as originally proposed. Someone looking for LGBT Community would surely go ahead and type that anyway. Otherwise, it’d be analogous to someone looking up “car” and being sent to ‘Ford’ instead of a generic article on automobiles. From your Standalone Lists references, it appears the ‘Outline of LGBT topics’ article should move to ‘List of LGBT topics’, and that’s where I now think LGBT should take them, if they include no other words in the search term. Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do like the idea of adding prose to the outline regardless. Having gone through all the articles there is a range of things that LGBT community and LGBT culture cover and the overlaps do get weird. I have no clue anymore what direction we should go in :( ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I think either expand the current LGBT article into a Broad Concept Article without moving it, or move it to your proposed 'LGBT (initialism)' and move Outline of LGBT topics to 'LGBT'. The latter makes more sense to me, because the tedious work of finding every article on the LGBT topic is already done, and every topic under the sun is in there; all it needs is a paragraph or two to introduce the history of LGBT. Who cares if it's a DAB if it does what readers want? As a frequent user of this encylopedia myself, that's what I would be looking for. If LGBT were instead to be sent to any of the sub-articles, and that sub-article was not what the user was seeking then they'd be typing in all sorts of search terms until they found a match. Moreover it may mislead them into thinking there isn't that much on the LGBT topic in Wikipedia, whereas the list article disabuses such a potential misconception. I'm happy to carry out the moves if you as proposer agree, and no-one objects. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely oppose making Outline of LGBT topics or any other DAB or quasi-DAB the main article. A CONCEPTDAB needs to contain a minimum of several paragraphs explaining what LGBT is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Note I already said in my answer above that introductory paragraphs would be needed, as did the OP. Are you able to volunteer? I can't think of a more suitable article to act as a directory to the vast array of Wikipedia articles on LGBT. I don't think an article on the American LGBT Community originally proposed for the redirect is the answer at all. Another option not yet considered is to merge the current LGBT article and possible the OP's proposed draft, with the Outline list article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to close Can someone with Admin rights close this? Majority is opposed, and the thread has fallen silent on alternatives. I can remove my request for the Broad Concept article as above. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parts of speech

Follow-up comment: Part of the problem with the article title may be that the title is basically an adjective, not a noun. Generally, Wikipedia article titles are nouns, per the WP:NOUN section of the article title policy – such as the titles LGBT community, LGBT culture, and Gay men. The noun title for a broad concept article might be something like LGBT people (which is a redirect to a list of lists). As a noun, LGBT may primarily just be the term itself. Similarly, Gay is an article about a term. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant Citation (and New User)

Hi, I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia, and this page has protections I can't get around (for sad but understandable reasons, to wit, vandalism), but I'm pretty sure I've found a research error, so I thought I'd just leave a note. I was looking for information on the initial development and adoption of the LGBT acronym—not more recent developments, like the addition of "Q" and "+" and "2S" etc.—so I started here.

The second paragraph of the introduction reads, "LGBT is an adaptation of LGB, which began to replace the term gay (or gay and lesbian), in reference to the broader LGBT community beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s.[2]"; citation 2 reads, "Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary, Volume 1, Part 1. Gale Research Co., 1985, ISBN 978-0-8103-0683-7. Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989 Archived 6 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine." However, after checking both of these sources (the Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary, vol. 1, pt. 1, AND all five listed issues of Factsheet Five: 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36), I can't find any information at all that verifies the statement in paragraph two. Both sources (or all six, technically) make numerous references to the acronym's components—particularly "gay" and "lesbian," which were both far more commonly used in the 80s than their more contemporary cohorts—but nowhere do any of them expressly communicate that, "LGBT is an adaptation of LGB, which began to replace the term gay (or gay and lesbian), in reference to the broader LGBT community beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s."

This is probably not a huge deal, since it's hardly the meat of the article, but I do believe that Wikipedia is a legitimate and effective research resource, and this dead/faulty reference was very disappointing to me, as I'd hoped that the sources listed could better explain the development of LGB into LGBT in the common North American vernacular. I'm having some difficulty finding other external sources that can reliably discuss the development of the acronym (which is part of why I came here), but if I find any that make better sources, I'll pop round here again and drop them off. Sorry about the wall-o'-text, thanks for your patience! Have a good one! 142.132.8.0 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, your post probably couldn't have been read as an attack on LGBTQ+ groups until you complained about whether it could be taken as an attack. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Minor suggestion

The original term "GLBT" should be mentioned in the lead somewhere Mach61 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Change the Page's name to LGBTQ+

Nowadays, most people refer to them as The LGBTQ+ community instead of simply The LGBT community. I think the pages name should be changed from LGBT to LGBTQ+ to include everyone. Not just gay, lesbians, bi people, and transfolk. 76.64.181.63 (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We've had three previous rename requests (June 2023, May 2022, February 2018) to change the name to LGBTQ, which either resulted in opposition to the move or no consensus.

For your mention of inclusion, I disagree with that as LGBT is an umbrella term, outlined by this article, which includes anyone, just like the "rainbow community" phrasing. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

More information on the shift from GLBT to LGBT

The idea of the "lesbians first" movement is touched upon in the article, but not really delved into here. If I recall, a big part of the lesbians first movement is their incredibly prominent role in the HIV/AIDs crisis, ie, their involvement in protests, the running of blood drives for gay men, along with the toll AIDs took in the lesbian community as well. I can probably find some sources for this, but it might take me some time. Would appreciate any help and/or feedback! 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransButterflyQueen (talk • contribs)

I've heard this story before have wondered if this is a myth because I've never been able to find any sources which describe it this way. The sources I can find, however, describe it as a feminist change to the movement, moving L to the front to account for misogyny or something. The only source that I can find that describes this is this one, which says "Both the terms are used interchangeably. Although identical in meaning LGBT has a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places L first." —Panamitsu (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no this article is way messed up

So you see, it has come to my attention that this article may not be navigateable to anyone who wants information regarding what the term actually stands for, especially since the article has a lot of information about the onomastics (ooh, fancy word). Anyways, the article would be better with information about what the acronym actually STANDS for, instead of etymology. Ooh, I know! Maybe there can be two articles: One about what it stands for, and another about the etymology and onomastics! Cool, I think that works. Cleter (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean "instead of etymology", I was trying to say "we need to know which takes priority in the article: what it stands for, or the etymology". I'm yapping, I need to dip. Cleter (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It is on the first sentence of this article. It says: LGBT is an initialism that stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender". —Panamitsu (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but there’s gonna be no information on the community? Only that little segment? Cleter (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What specific information are you talking about? —Panamitsu (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! I don’t know, because there’s no article about it! I sound dumb, what I’m trying to say is that if someone says “oh are you a part of the lgbt?” then you’re gonna wonder (can I use you the reader as an example? Thx) “what’s lgbt?” and then if you look it up here you’re gonna see a bunch of word play and onomatics (haha I love that word). Of course, you’re gonna want actual information other than etymology. Cleter (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the article does a fine job at describing what it is, even just from the first sentence. Why don't you think that works? Also there are other articles such as LGBT culture which you may be referring to. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The information you seem to be requesting is in either LGBT community, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer all of which are linked in the second paragraph of the lede. Previous versions of the article linked directly to the Community article in the {{about}} hatnote, but was changed relatively recently to point to Outline of LGBT topics instead. I wouldn't be opposed to some reintroduction of that link. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and turned the Outline link into a separate hatnote from the disambiguation one, using the (clever and cool) Template:For outline, thus creating room for expanding the DAB. I wouldn't hate something like this:

This page is about the initialism. For LGBT people in society, see LGBT community, LGBT history, and LGBT culture. For other uses, see LGBTQ/Archive 3 (disambiguation).

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good, I can remove the template with that. Perfect, what do you say? Cleter (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the § Transgender inclusion section

@Writ Keeper: First of all, gender and sex are different things.

• Male ≠ man

• Female ≠ woman

• Intersex ≠ non-binary

Sex is anatomical and physiological, but gender is not.

Cisgender people's birth sex matches with their gender(s);

Whereas transgender people's birth sex does not match with their gender(s).

Non-binary people don't fall under the trans umbrella, except some non-binary people who are born trans. The trans umbrella includes both binary trans people and non-binary trans people, any of whom can be born genderqueer, genderfluid, and/or two-spirit, bigender, trigender.

However, there are many non-binary people who are born cisgender. They are not transgender, and do not fall under the trans umbrella.

Similarly, all genderfluid people who are born cisgender, are not transgender.

Similarly, all genderqueer, two-spirit, and/or bigender or trigender people who are born cisgender, are not transgender.

Hence, we need more reliable, better sources for distinguishing between these terms. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 14:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this language is quite vague and redundant honestly. That said, IMHO trans people are people who identify with a gender other than their AGAB. Nonbinary people identify with a gender other than their AGAB. Therefore nonbinary people inherently fall under the trans umbrella and "cis nonbinary" is an oxymoron.

Would also argue personally that "genderfluid" and "bigender/trigender" and so forth don't necessarily fall under transgender or cisgender, but gender questioning. Tdmurlock (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)