Talk:LGBTQ stereotypes/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comment

This is a rather shitty article, if I may be so bold. I think we need to heavily revise it. 129.59.99.211 04:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagged.

I have tagged this article because it does not cite sources, seems incredibly POV and a few points made seem to be wholly subjective to interpretation. ExRat 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merits of this article

I have grave reservations about the purpose served by the article. There are no articles of Wikipedia about:

• black stereotyping
• jewish stereotyping
• stereotypes of women etc.

Why is it that a specific article is needed to cover gay stereotyping? Is there any good reason why this article should not be deleted or merged into a section at the Homophobia article? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be better merged into stereotype - gay stereotyping is not necessarily homophobic. Barnabypage 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Would people say black stereotyping isn't necessarily racist? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that a gay man who dressing, talks, and acts in a stereotypical manner is a homophobe? Koweja 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. That's a basic element of personal freedom. Would I think that someone who labels someone as gay because they dress, talk and acts in a manner associated to a gay stereotype is a homophobe? Probably yes. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What if they do it because they feel that's what they need to do to "be gay". People's self image can be influenced by the stereotypes of others to the point where they adopt them. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone that acts in the stereotypical manner. Another example of stereotyping and bigotry/phobia not being the same thing: take white people who act like stereotypical black gangsters. Obviously they believe the stereotype, but they certainly don't hate or fear blacks. Granted, this is probably a bad example since you're not an American, but that's all I've got. Koweja 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK- I'm starting to see where you coming from. I would have thought all one had to do to be gay was be attracted to people of the same gender, but I do see your point. To me it seems like giving in to the prejudice, but I may be taking too narrow a view and be guilty of my own POV bias. In any event, since you pointed me in the direction of Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks and seeing that it is unlikely to get a concensus to delete in its AfD, I think I've already lost this argument. The least one can do is work on this article- distinguish between stereotyping as hostile/prejudice labeling and what role it may have in self-identity, for one thing. It's going to be a big project to get this article up to standard. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, "a lot of work" doesn't even begin to describe what it'll take to make this a good article, but I can see it happening. I've nominated this to be a LGBT Project collaboration, there is a chance. Koweja 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay - does anyone know of any serious academic work on this topic as a starting point? Amazon only comes up with one result for "gay stereotype" and that's "Gender Nonconformity, Race, and Sexuality: Charting the Connections", which doesn't look quite the right thing - there are lots of general works on gay history, of course, but can anyone recommend a relevant one? WJBscribe - I agree stereotyping is often homophobic, but stereotypes can also be referred to in jest by non-homophobes, and indeed by gay men themselves. IMHO merging this into homophobia would extend the definition of the latter excessively. Barnabypage 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Name that article

The first thing that needs to be done is to figure out a name of the article. Firstly, I would recomend Stereotypes of ______ rather than _______ stereotyping just because it looks better and is less vague. Secondly, we need to decide on which group that is being stereotyped should this article address. As it stands it can only be about homosexual men, however if we rename it to Stereotypes of homosexuals we can include stereotypes of lesbians. We could expand it even further to include bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, and so forth. However, there really doesn't seem to be as much stereotyping of these groups homosexuals, so I would be okay with limiting the focus to homosexuals.

Summary: we should rename the article to Stereotypes of homosexuals. Koweja 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominate Stereotypes of LGBT people or Sexuality-based stereotypes because it broadens the topic and these stereotypes are often lumped together by the stereotypers. --Tiger Marc^ROAR! 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do like Sexuality-based stereotypes. Koweja 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I think it would widen the article, and that it can be included in all of the templates. -Bopopop loves Eurobeat 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Miso

Agree - Sexuality-based stereotypes -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's been moved (obviously :) ). Koweja 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:rename

I seem to have missed the boat on this discussion. Just wanted to check, the rename seems to require Stereotypes of heterosexuals (and potentially also for paedophiles, zoosexuals etc.) to also be included in this article. Was this intentional/practical? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that the title of Stereotypes of LGBT people proposed above would make the page more manageable... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I seem to have jumped the gun on the move - sorry about that, but we can always move it again. It wasn't intentional to make it so broad. However, it might be useful to include stereotypes of heterosexuals since they are often the foundation for stereotypes of LGBTs (gays are stereotyped as acting like a woman, lesbians are stereotyped as acting like a man). Koweja 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Mmm- isn't that gender stereotypes rather than heterosexual ones technically? Not sure of a title that would include heterosexuals but leave out the other sexualities I mentioned... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If this weren't a part of the Queer Studies portal, I would be in complete support of making this article so broad as to include all sexualities. However, since it is part of the portal, I am in support of the name change. Jellocube27 21:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about calling it LGBT stereotypes? That seems to reflect the current scope. In addition, sexuality is not the equivalent to sexual orientation. (See Sexuality and Human sexuality: Sexuality refers to sexual behavior in all sexual organisms. -Emiellaiendiay 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic foundation

Any ideas for where we can find reliable academic sources that discuss sexuality-based stereotypes and their validity? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. One of the joys of working for a private college is a free access to lots and lots of subscription research databases. If you don't have access to subscription stuff, I would start with Google Scholar. If you have any kind of decently funded academic institution that you can get to, try their library. Koweja 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes of perceived sexuality

We should probably discuss stereotypes of perceived sexuality as well as thse based upon actual sexuality - e.g. assuming an effeminate man is gay, when he may in fact be straight (or bisexual, or actually gay). Aleta 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

True, we should also integrate metrosexuality into the article. It is often perceived as acting like a gay man. Koweja 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you guys think that gay/lesbian stereotypes are true for the most part? I mean, most gay men I've met are quite noticeable. The voice Gay Voice, the eye and hand movements are all too cliche in the "ladies/men?" I've met. I'm a masculine gay man and really annoyed by them for being lumped with THEM. It annoys most when I say "If I wanted someone feminine, I'd go with a woman." It's tue, why would I go with a femmie if women do a better job at it? [confidential] 09:28, 31 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamanaxl (talk • contribs)

Are we collaborating?

If this is the collaboration of the month, shouldn't we all (myself included) be doing more? It's not getting much attention, folks. Aleta 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We should. I'll try to add something along the lines of my suggestion above, within the next day or two. Burnley 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Adding some citations where I can and trying to rewrite portions, where appropriate. Feedback is appreciated. Parammon 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Parammon, YOU ROCK!! I think this article is actually starting to shape up!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. Now we have a better idea of this article's scope, is there general support for renaming it LGBT stereotypes? WJBscribe 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we have to rename it unless we include a section about straight stereotypes.Parammon 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with renaming. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I've been bold and moved the page. I've removed the double redirects that resulted. It can easily be undone if there are objections. WJBscribe 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Go you! Parammon 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been changed — yay! (No objections from me.) -Emiellaiendiay 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Straight Stereotypes

Not to go back on what we said, but if we do add a straight stereotype, can we use this image? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that a straight stereotype? It looks kinda homoerotic to me... WJBscribe 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Or is that Mmmmm... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks homoerotic to me also. I ain't saying I find the picture attractive, but seems as though it's aimed for gay / bi men. LuciferMorgan 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's homoerotic as well. Maybe we can use it on the Homomasculinity page. That needs work too. Parammon 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

it would prob be that they(well 4 men): -drink beer
-watch football
-beat there wives
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spain396 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

I have to say, this article is shaping up nicely. I am in awe of the mass of citations. Excellent work!! -Emiellaiendiay 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Make Sense

How does marketing towards homosexuals through homo erotic imagery mean that a company is supporting a stereotype?

How is "everyone is a bisexual" a stereotype? Isn't that instead a point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SykoSilver (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2007 3 August 3 (UTC)

relevance to article?

Men on a parade float at a gay pride parade

I have removed the following image from the article. Nothing in the caption addresses sterotypes and I found nothing in the sourced text of the article which addresses anything in the image. (gays like balloons??) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

heterosexual stereotypes

i think we need a heterosexual stereotypes article, especially if we have this article....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then make one. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

They need to change the definitions of cross dresser and transvestite in this article.

I am a tgirl and some of these mistakes are somewhat apparent and many others in my shoes would agree.

A Cross dress is typically a male who wear female clothing either for sexual release or short term comfort of fulfilling his feminine fantasies. Sometimes, he can take this practice outside the home to cross dressing clubs but for the most part, this act is usually done in the privacy of their own homes.

A transvestite is typically a homosexual male who wear female clothing for sexual and fetish purposes. This may sound similar to a cross dresser, but transvestites dress for sexual satisfaction and for sexual encounters with other men who are dressed in femme or with other men who are not dressed en femme. AnnahKareal (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A plan?

I was thinking that the next step would be to split up each section into dress, mannerisms, speech... Something like that. Also, to make this "lgbT", what are some trans stereotypes? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am opposed to the idea of categorising stereotypes in that manner, but I see where you are coming from. It is easier to lump together facts (which we do not have in this article) based on sexuality, at least until we have a wealth of (accurate) information. Jellocube27 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• We need to rewrite the lead paragraph as the article topic as defined by the title is much broader than those about homosexuals. (We have already a section about bisexuals - not included in the terminology of the lead paragraph.) Aleta 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be a good idea to include a discussion of the origins of sexuality-based stereotypes (e.g. homophobia), their historical use and their consequences and effects. There is plenty of scholarship on these topics. Burnley 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the "Transgendered men & women" section is blank. I'd add the stereoype that all transgendered people become prostitutes, but I have no sources to back that up. - Emiellaiendiay 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source online for the prostitution view and have begun expanding the Transgendered stub. I began it with a very general definition of the term because it covers such broad territory.Parammon 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty

One popular stereotype about LGBT people is the common association with pederasty. It should probably be included in the entry. ADM (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

please present reliable sources to present that POV. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see that on here along with how it isn't true. Amn12 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Hi folks, I noticed the following: "Designers, including Dolce & Gabbana, have made use of homoerotic imagery in their advertising. Some commentators argue this encourages the stereotype that gay men enjoy shopping." Now it's cited, but the citation is to only one article which I'm not able to read online :-( Did this article say who the commentators are? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

yuri

talk about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.110.175 (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Derekbd (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus of this article

The current layout leads to a poor treatment of the subject. The subtitles such as "Transgenderism" are a type of gender rather than a class of stereotype. The focus should be on the subject itself, so stereotypes such as "lipstick lesbians" or "bears" should be the meat of the topic rather than a breakdown of "LGBT".

I am concerned about the tendency to confuse out of date stereotypes with those in current common use. The article must address the chronology rather than just become a confused list. There is also the problem of becoming a list of offensive terms for stereotypes which would be unmaintainable, off-topic and a vandalism magnet.

Recommendations:

• Restructure the article away from LGBT terms to the classes of stereotype.
• Address the chronology so that at a minimum it is clear which stereotypes are in current use versus those included for their historic usage.
• Avoid confusion between slang offensive terms based on a stereotype rather than the stereotype itself and multiple terms for similar stereotypes.
• Point out to main articles for particular stereotypes, for example Twink (gay slang) and Bear (gay culture).

—Fæ (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perspective

I respect your concerns. I am apparently in the wrong place. I was addressing the article from an academic point of view, which was part of my studies. My mistake , sorry. You have written an excellent outline for the article, so go for it! Feel free to rv what I have written and I will take my research oriented brain elsewhere. My friends are simply my friends whatever their orientation.I am not familiar enough with the slang and I simply don't comprehend stereotypes except "Fag hag" which is where I fall. I hope you understand. Good luck with the article. Happy Editing! DocOfSoc (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• If your studies relate to gender and society then the topic of stereotypes is well supported by research and publications. I don't think that an academic point of view is contradictory here and I have no intention of putting you off from contributing, I am only making some suggestions for restructuring this tricky topic for which I am not an expert. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no one else has jumped in, I am back ;-) My degree is in Sociology, with extensive studies in Gender issues, I just don't know the slang. Looking forward to your comments on latest edits. For slang, I may call a friend, unless someone volunteers here. Happy New year! DocOfSoc (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Add request for male homos

Fred Phelps' church and others seem to emphasize anal sex. Should we add this as a stereotype? serioushat 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fred Phelps is an unspeakable xxxxx xxxxx (self censored), his "Church' is mostly his family. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex too, so where is a stereotypeDocOfSoc (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)?

Image

Img = RickyMartin.jpg to be coded. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening section

The second paragraph about a poll of Europeans and Asians and their opinions on the influence of US media is not germane to the article. Unless this poll has something to do with LGBT stereotypes, in which case this needs to be stated instead of the poll results on US media influence, this paragraph should be deleted. 167.142.45.104 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for lack of comment, I'm going remove the non-relevant material. 167.142.45.104 (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just saw comment. The template that stated this article did not represent a world view was removed in the last year, partly due to this paragraph, so it needs to stay. TY. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused since the paragraph adds nothing to the article, since it has nothing to do with the subject. It is like a page on bowling having a poll on world perception of US architecture simply to fulfill a requirement. I feel that the entry retracts from the page by adding information that is in no way germane to the article. Not having a world view is a legitimate criticism, but this paragraph does not help, since it is a world view on US media, not LGBT stereotypes. 167.142.45.104 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, it seems to verge at least on WP:OR, since (if it has any relevance at all) it's implying that LGBT stereotypes are disseminated by U.S. media - yet the article does not go on to explore or justify that point at all, as far as I can see. Barnabypage (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK: undone. Got to agree ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Basic copyediting

Have done my best with sentence structure, grammar etc. (and hopefully haven't made significant mistakes), but it requires further work, as I only covered the first two sections. --Soulparadox 21:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Non stereotypes?

Theres no section on how many members of the LGBT "community" seem to lack the behavior of most if not all of the stereotypes? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

---It seems to me it would be difficult to find a source for that stat unless you have one; would this include those still in the closet, no way to verify that stat! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC) ---BTW, There should be no quotation marks on LGBT Community — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only people who are in the closet... but it is true that closeted LGBT members tend to seem less flamboyant, but hey I know a few LGBT members who are out and not very stereotypical... I'm living proof myself. Although they're way more common than most people think, the media doesn't care about these people so it'll be hard to find... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerned

I am concerned that since last editing this article, Material about women has been removed and the male section expanded. I ho[e to return and help remedy this unbalance report and would appreciate any help. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The lesbian article may be a good place to check. Insomesia (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A Great deal pf which I wrote in this article has been removed. Any help would be appreciated! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How long ago was the content there? Insomesia (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevancy check?

"In more general terms, the representation of female sexuality in texts and documents has been described as inadequate. As of 2012, much of what has been documented about women's sexuality has been written by men, with any significant exceptions published in recent years. Critics have stated that those works written by men have been constructed within the context of a male understanding of female sexuality, and reinforce notions of women as wives, daughters or mothers.[11]"

This is the last paragraph of the "Lesbians" subsection. While this is interesting information, I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with female homosexuality. Unless we're trying to say that women can't be parents, have parents, or get married. Which I assume we aren't. Randomnessu (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lesbian Sub-sectioning

New to the page but when I saw the Lesbian section and then the Gay section, there was a marked difference in ease of reading, mainly due to a lack of sub-sectioning in the Lesbian section. If someone could change this so that the two sections are more equally based, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks DrCrazy102 talk 05:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the first two paragraphs don't really seem related to the topic of "Stereotypes", instead the paragraphs sound almost like a history lesson that should be put onto the Lesbian page, not on a page discussing LGBT stereotypes. DrCrazy102 talk 06:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 (talk · contribs), regarding the current state of the article, the Gay men section has subsections because its has significantly more content than the Lesbians section. We should only create subheadings when needed. And, per MOS:Paragraphs, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." As for the first two paragraphs of the Lesbians section, that content doesn't need to be added to the Lesbian article...since it's already covered there. If those first two paragraphs are removed from the Lesbians section, which is something I wouldn't mind, then I see even less of a reason to add subsections to that section...since its length would be further reduced.

Also, remember to sign your username. All you have to do to sign your username is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username above, which you removed before I restored it, and I tagged your other comment as unsigned. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lesbian section has 7/8 paragraphs and I know that at least four of those were discussing Butch/Dyke and Femme stereotypes, so you can't just use the "Short paragraphs and single sentences" line on this. The paragraphs are already there, I'm simply asking if they should be sub-sectioned into Butch/Dyke and Femme sections, which would also improve the readability of the article.

Thank you for re-tagging my name, I'd edited my previous comment and I must've accidently taken out my tag somehow. I've put it back in now after several attempts, thanks for the effort. DrCrazy102 talk 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I do not see the need for subsections for that section, especially if we remove the first two paragraphs. For backstory on my aversion to unneeded subsections, see the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections. That stated, I am open to compromising. I would be open to two subheadings for that section; feel free to title them, and remember that, per MOS:Head, Wikipedia goes by sentence case, not title case. To divide that section any more than two subheadings would result in sections that consist of very little content. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the section has seven paragraphs, and it's only seven because of the WP:Blockquote; otherwise, it would be six. And again, I don't mind the first two paragraphs being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There aren't really any other sections that could be created in the Lesbian section, but I certainly understand your reasoning for not wanting to put subheadings in a lot better now. Sounds like you've been fighting some uphill battles over subheadings with various users, which is my exact reasoning for always checking and at least getting a good discussion though I feel that I may not have been very clear at the start when asking for "more equally based" sections, silly me. DrCrazy102 talk 06:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, are you stating that you changed your mind about creating subsections? And what about removing the first two paragraphs? Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I have to put in question the claim that 90 % pedophiles are heterosexual. Out of the sources given, one is not available and the other source is not reliable which leaves the claim unsupported by reliable sources. I have seen a few studies on how many pedophiles are heterosexual pedophiles and how many pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles, but the numbers varied wildly, except one they all reported much less than 90 % of pedophiles being heterosexual pedophiles. I'll try to look them up. Also there is undue weight on mentioning result of one study claiming 90 % of cases of child sexual abuse is by heterosexual men against girls. I think rather the most common results, which seems to be that 70-80 % of CSA victims are female, should be reported.

We need to make a distinction between pedophiles and sex offenders against children. They are not the same. Only 15-60 % of sex offenders against children are pedophiles. Furthermore, the sex of victim doesn't necessarily have to match the offenders sexual orientation. Also we have to distinguish who one is attracted to from who one lives in a relationship with. We need to be careful about using the terms homosexual and heterosexual. Typically they are meant to refer to orientations towards adults of the same sex or adults of the opposite sex. Pedophiles don't have such orientations. (Or at least in majority of cases. Some people can be oriented both towards children and adults about the same and it depends whether we count them as pedophiles.) They have orientation towards children, boys, girls or both. Some people report being attracted both to adults and children, but the sex of the children they are attracted to is different than the sex of adults they are attracted to. And in such case using terms homosexual and heterosexual fails. They are not even bisexual in the common use of the term and they are not bisexual pedophiles. I recommend the article Male Homosexuality, Science, and Pedophilia by sexologist James Cantor explaining. Another good source is Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation (concretely the Terminology section). Lunruj (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lunruj (talk · contribs), I remember you from a Pedophilia talk page discussion, where three regular editors of that article (Legitimus, KateWishing and myself) weighed in. Yes, the pedophilia section of the LGBT stereotypes article needs work. You can see my frustration with it in this, this and this link; with that second edit, you can see that I note the poor sources and am considering taking the matter to WP:Med. With that third link, you can see that I am distinguishing between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. I think that the 90% figure actually refers to child sexual abusers. You and I know how the media confuses the two, and using media sources for this information is inappropriate. The Pedophilia article is more accurate on these matters. WP:Advocacy has gone at the LGBT stereotypes article with regard to pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, your use of "Pedophiles don't have such orientations" is odd. Pedophilia is not usually classified as a sexual orientation by experts on pedophilia or by the medical/scientific community at large. Yes, pedophiles are sexually oriented toward children, but they do have a sexual orientation (meaning they have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to males or females, or don't mind either sex in a sexual sense); for some of them, they don't care if the child is a boy or a girl, but it's not uncommon that they do care. Various experts on pedophilia state that there are heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, or bisexual pedophiles. Since you mentioned James Cantor, I'll go ahead and WP:Ping him with this edit: User:James Cantor. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that by "Pedophiles don't have such orientations," you meant "orientations towards adults of the same sex or adults of the opposite sex." Therefore, I struck my sentence on that above. That stated, some people who prefer prepubescent children sexually but can also be sexually attracted to adults are termed pedophiles; they are the non-exclusive type. Like you stated, "Some people report being attracted both to adults and children." Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to add whatever I can. My experience is that most people miss what is otherwise a pretty obvious point: Adult men and women are more distinct from each other than are young boys and girls, who can pass as the other sex with just a change of haircut and outfit. That is, for people who are into children, the difference between boys and girls is much smaller than the difference between men and women. So, we see more "cross-over" behavior among pedophiles than among adultophiles (which sexologists call "teleiophiles"). — James Cantor (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's rather surprising that even with such subtle differences there are things like boylove or girllove forums. Even among people attracted to preschool children or toddlers there are people who strongly prefer children of one sex. Also, if there genuinely are people who are attracted to prepubescent boys who are also attracted to adult women significantly more than towards prepubescent girls (and it's not for example that they acknowledge the attraction towards women more despite being attracted more towards girls), that's very interesting. Lunruj (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

When I say sexual orientation, I simply mean a lasting pattern of erotic reactivity to various groups. I use a minimalistic definition of sexual orientation. I wouldn't use it that way in an article (I would try to follow academic consensus) but it's different on a talk page, especially when trying to make a certain point. I acknowledge a lot of pedophiles (likely a great majority of pedophiles) are attracted either very dominantly to boy or very dominantly to girls. One thing I am trying to say is that I suspect looking at people's orientations as combination of orientation towards sex and orientation towards age may be a bad idea. Based on what I've heard there seems to be people who simply don't fit such model. The category of homosexual as people attracted towards people of the same sex regardless of age may be pretty artificial. Another reason why I think that is that the ratio of homosexual pedophiles to pedophiles is so much larger than the ration of homosexual teleiophiles to teleiophiles. Lunruj (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Lunruj (talk · contribs), feel free to be WP:Bold and clean up the pedophilia section of this article in an appropriate way. Flyer22 (talk) Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT stereotypes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081222160720/http://www.hankstuever.com:80/cojocaru.html to http://www.hankstuever.com/cojocaru.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080510103103/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=366 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=366

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Bury your gays" trope

Sandstein, regarding this, I wouldn't call the "Bury your gays" trope an LGBT stereotype. It's a cliché, yes.

At the same time, I don't see a Wikipedia article that this content is better suited for, except for the Trope (literature) article. But that article is currently small and I understand this article seeming like a "more at home" space for it than that one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I originally intended to write a separate article, but found that there's too little content for that yet (except endless examples, which TV Tropes is better for). So faute de mieux this is where I put it.  Sandstein  19:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Asexuality and Pansexuality

The article itself is very well written assessing the stereotypes of what people believe to be the main sexualities (I.E. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual). But I believe the article would be more effective if it addressed Asexuality and Pansexuality too. It could talk about how many people including those part of the Lgbt community often don't believe in the sexualities Bisexuality, Asexuality and Pansexuality. Also how Asexuals are believed to be virgin prudes and Pansexuals are promiscuous vixens. I believe that the section on those who are transgender can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.159 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Citations, More Info on Asian Americans

Lots of claims and few citations for the snippet in the "Intersections between LGBT, race, and class stereotypes" (specifically the paragraph referring to Asian Americans). Could also use better language/wording (it's currently a bit vague and clunky). Rtanaka96 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Gay Representation in the Media

     The LGBTQ community is represented in a majority of the shows that appear on television that is watched by millions of people around the world. The representation of this group is vital for the equality of the queer people and the representation they need in the large community that we call the world. Although the representation of this community is there, stereotypes are still prevalent on what the media consumers watch everyday. The acknowledgment of these stereotypes is important for the LGBTQ community because it represents the identities that the media gives them and portrays them in the world.[1] The stereotypes of homosexuality, seem to be reiterated from the stereotypes of gay men themselves. These stereotypes derive from overtly feminine men that is presented through television and makes the awareness of these stereotypes more available and noticeable to heterosexual people. [2]

     Some stereotypes that are presented through todays media is that gay men love fashion, have nice apartments, and view famous singers as godly figures. They can also be looked at as being overly promiscuous, and going to nightclubs dancing provocatively. [3]On the show Queer as Folk, the character Brian is portrayed like this. He has a nice apartment that is always clean, he has fancy clothes, and can be seen at the dance clubs being sexual promiscuous with other men. The mainstream gay stereotypes are presented in this show, but it can also be viewed positively for the portrayal and incorporation of HIV, and how someone lives with it. [4]Another show that pushes the gay stereotypes is the New Normal. The two main characters push the heteronormative stereotypes of gay men. Bryan plays the effeminate character who cares more about female things like shopping and what their child should wear to the christening. His partner David is more masculine and enjoys football and drinking beer.[5] Denying these stereotypes would ask the audience to ignore what is right in front of them, but also asks them to connect and see the stereotypes for what they are.[6]

NikosKouts4 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are explaining gay representation well and you are finding good examples of LGBTQ from the media, but I think you have some problems of how you set up the section. It doesn't fit the image as the other sections on the talk page, so I suggest you fix of how you set up your section. I also noticed that you didn't include the links of your sources and have only put in numbers instead. If you found any sources for the information of your topic, suggest you use cite your sources if we want to see them on the talk page and on the Article page. I also think you should include Lesbian representation in media in your draft as well. Thus far you have found information on gay men, and I think it would raise LGBTQ awareness more if you include gay women in your article.Nick Mundy (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT stereotypes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423032540/http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28980.asp to http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28980.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921093652/http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=2025 to http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=2025
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018182049/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/world/vatican.homosexuality.pedophilia_1_pedophilia-gay-rights-cardinal-tarcisio-bertone?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/world/vatican.homosexuality.pedophilia_1_pedophilia-gay-rights-cardinal-tarcisio-bertone?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101043203/http://www.glaad.org/document.doc?id=99 to http://www.glaad.org/document.doc?id=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520111935/http://www.msu.edu/~alliance/faq/faqtransgendered.html to http://www.msu.edu/~alliance/faq/faqtransgendered.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT stereotypes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atypon-link.com/SJP/doi/abs/10.2224/sbp.1976.4.2.233?cookieSet=1&journalCode=sbp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.utpjournals.com/product/md/434/boys10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112200623/http://www.bububelfast.com/Whatisabear.html to http://www.bububelfast.com/Whatisabear.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307013808/http://www.thecompletebear.com/life.php to http://www.thecompletebear.com/life.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425230241/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/fashion.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/fashion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314124757/http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html to http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Transgender/Drag Queen

I feel as if the transgender section of the article has some problems. Its less than a paragraph and this particular community has been making more strides as the year progresses. This section also puts a blanket statement over transgender people where they are labeling them with drag queens and cross dressers. These are completely different things and should be updated a little bit. I also think that we could add a different section for drag queens and the representation that they have in the queer community, and the impact that they still hold today. NikosKouts4 (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The transgender topic section of this wikipedia page should have more examples of stereotypes as well as more information about transgender people in general. Drag queens and cross dressers are also not generally to be regarded as transgender. I wanted to contribute to this page by adding the following:

"Another stereotype about transgender people is that they all want or have had gender affirming surgery. While surgery can be sought after by many transgender people and gender non-conforming people, it is not always necessary for some people to feel “complete” in their gender identity. Not being able to afford surgery is just one of the reasons transgender people have not, and will not have surgery. Costs can be upwards of $200,000 due to access to resources, and lack of coverage within insurance. This leaves many transgender people paying out of pocket for surgery, and traveling large distances for such procedures."

These are the sources I used to gather the information above: https://www.hrc.org/resources/debunking-the-myths-transgender-health-and-well-being http://www.transgendermichigan.org/resources/myths.html https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics https://health.usnews.com/health-care/patient-advice/articles/2018-05-25/what-is-gender-affirming-surgery http://www.transgendermichigan.org/resources/myths.html https://www.hrc.org/resources/debunking-the-myths-transgender-health-and-well-being

Kodamehalba (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

David Bowie

I'm not sure why David Bowie is given great prominence in the bisexuality section of this article. He experimented sometimes, and during some phases of his life he liked to present an ambiguous persona, but all of his long-term or significant relationships seem to have been with women (see David Bowie#Sexuality)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Citations, More Race Representation

More citations, specifically in the "Lesbian" section of the article, could provide a stronger foundation for the summary. Also, I believe it would be better to include more race representation in the "Intersections between LGBT, race, and class stereotypes." Maybe discuss African Americans, Middle Eastern, or Indian LGBT members in this section to broaden your horizon of information. The use of more clear and straight-forward words and phrases will also aid you in writing a stronger, easy-to-understand article that everyone can take something away from. --Oliveeeeoil (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions are good and should be added to the article for a more diverse page. This article should reach out to as many different LGBT people as possible and by adding these more diverse groups, it would make for a healthier article.ZachMousseau (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion, TED video, provides many videos from speakers all over the world. There many citations on that web page but I couldn't log in. Taking a look would be good. (User:chele699) 20:55, September 22, 2019, (Cheri Shelton 04:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chele1169 (talk • contribs)

Taller

Gwenhope, regarding this, this, this and this, like Florian Blaschke and I stated, the stereotype is that trans women are always taller and always have larger hands. This is why "always" is more accurate. Like I noted in one of my edit summaries, trans women are usually taller due to sexual dimorphism. There are academic sources that also note that trans women are typically taller than cisgender women. This is not just some stereotype. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I think you're misunderstanding some of the semantics of "stereotype" and the wording. Stereotypes inherently "always" apply to the category they're about, so saying it again is redundant because using the term "stereotype" necessarily invokes an always-type over-generalization. Many stereotypes have some basis in fact, but that makes them no less stereotypes. Also we should take extraordinary care with using "typically" as a basis for understanding. The mean is just that, an average. It is only a small part of understanding the whole picture. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not misunderstanding anything. I have been clear that we should not act like trans women typically being taller is just a stereotype. It's not. It's a fact. Yes, there can be truth to stereotypes, but many people take "stereotype" to mean that something is false, and, like the Stereotype article currently states, "a stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular category of people." That trans women are typically taller than cisgender women is not an over-generalized belief. The over-generalized belief is that they are always taller. We should be clear about that, and I see nothing wrong or redundant about including the word always to make that clear. I disagree with your view on "typically," which is not part of the text anyway. On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this article/talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And the effect of the stereotype is that women who happen to be tall and have large hands (or other typical "tells") are suspected of being trans, even though many of these women are not. The stereotype is that trans women always (or almost always, in 99% of all cases) have properties that make them stand out and appear obviously trans, and therefore easy to spot. However, such "tells", while having a basis in fact, are simply not that reliable (the linked Twitter thread shows how the 99% figure isn't even possible mathematically speaking, because so few women are trans, meaning that false positives swamp correctly "clocked" trans women, that is, if you rely on these "tells", you will in fact "clock" more women who are not trans than women who are actually trans, and the effect is magnified if you only rely on a few "tells" or even only a single "tell", such as height).

However, the statistical correlation between a woman being trans and her increased height and size of hands is robust and not a stereotype, as it is a function of undergoing a male-typical puberty (it makes you taller, etc., than you would have been had you undergone a female-typical puberty). It just says nothing about an individual woman at hand. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Found a source that could be used.

I found an article from the Southern Poverty Law Center discussing negative gay stereotypes. I think it can be useful to the article under section 3, gay men (specifically sections 3.3 (sex and drugs) and 3.4 (pedophilia and predation)). It mostly discusses negative stereotypes (such as pedophilia, bestiality, and sexual assault). FireSparkling (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC) FireSparkling

"Pedophilia and predation" under stereotypes?

While I understand the meaning, is being seen as a pedophile a "stereotype"? It seems more like a misinterpretation of statistics, or a prejudice. Perhaps a sentence needs to make that clearer? Hopefully Dr. @James Cantor: can provide some expertise. He has an excellent article discussing the claim of homosexuals being pedophiles here: Male Homosexuality, Science, and Pedophilia. It would likely make a good citation since I think the current paragraph is slightly weak. -Sxologist (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As made clear by sources such as this 2012 "Understanding the Psychology of Diversity" source, from Sage Publications, page 165, and this 2016 "Understanding Social Problems" source, from Cengage Learning, page 368, gay men automatically being child sexual abusers or specifically pedophiles (which is commonly considered the same thing as child sexual abusers among laypeople) is a stereotype. Like the first of these two sources makes clear, the stereotype of "gay people are child sexual abusers/pedophiles" is applied to gay men far more than it's applied to lesbians. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post to add "automatically" since, of course, some gay men are pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok great, thanks for clarification. Ray Blanchard's study which is well described here could be a useful addition to the article? It's also referred to in secondary academic sources should such an article be inappropriate. They may be more useful since they take a more holistic approach. However Dredger got further quotations from Blanchard which may be useful. --Sxologist (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Emhart34, hi. I see that you are a student editor. Regarding this? I reverted because, like I stated, we need to stick to sources that explicitly call these things stereotypes. See WP:Synthesis and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. This isn't a topic where we can just reply rely on editor judgment/discretion regarding what is an LGBT stereotype. We need sources that pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline to tell us what these stereotypes are. It's not like, for example, the violence against women topic, where although we also go by what reliable sources state, we don't need a source about men raping women to explicitly state "violence against women" to add that source and its material to the Violence against women article.

Furthermore, I question you using the "College Students' Multiple Stereotypes of Lesbians" source or any similar source. Why do you think that we should be reporting on college students' multiple stereotypes of lesbians? We shouldn't be relying on sources like that. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be relying on secondary sources rather than primary sources; WP:Primary sources is another page guiding on the use of sources. I'm also not sure why you are using sources as old as 1989 and 1991. You should look for sources that are at least from the mid to late 2000s or 2010s as a starting point. Google Books has material on lesbian stereotypes.

Also, it's important to not make common traits among lesbians simply look like stereotypes. Regarding this, I mean that you, for example, added, "Many lesbians are associated with typical tomboy appearances and mannerisms, including but not limited to short hair, wearing baggy clothes and playing sports. This representation is largely due to the portrayal of lesbians in mainstream news and media. Much of the news coverage on LGBT issues reinforces stereotyped portrayals of lesbians." But it is true that many lesbians were tomboys as children and are still gender nonconforming as adults. And, yes, it's no secret that the media has often portrayed one type of lesbian, but this goes for lipstick lesbians as well, when butch representation is often missing in television shows. And although the media has often hyped the butch and femme dynamic, it's a very real dynamic that exists, with some lesbians criticizing it as heteronormative. Going by some of your text, it's clear that you are aware of this, though. I mean, you also added the following: "However, while they may consequently face reduced discrimination from populations outside of the LGBT community, these stereotypes play out within the LGBTIQ+ community itself, with many women reporting feeling rejected by the queer community for not appearing or acting in the accepted way. While these labels are often used for stereotyping or deriding lesbian relationships, many members of the lesbian community consider their self-imposed designation as butch or femme to be a part of their identity."

I'm not stating that what is currently in the article on lesbians is the best. It's not. The section definitely needs work. But it needs to be improved without synthesis and with better sources. Some material can be re-added if added without synthesis. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacquelinebachrach, like I stated to Emhart34 above, make sure that you and your class are sticking to the sources that actually speak on stereotypes. No WP:Synthesis. Any synthesis will eventually be removed by me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dropped section 'Bury your gays'

The section entitled In fiction: "Bury your gays" has a lot of interesting information about how filmmakers and teleplay writers pigeonhole LGBT characters for sad ends, but this isn't stereotypical of gay or LGBT people, it's stereotypical of straight people to write that way. Nor is there any indication that the views expressed in those works of fiction represent stereotypical beliefs; more likely, they represent beliefs of power-brokers at publishers and networks that control what gets read or viewed, or even of the advertisers that support the latter, and especially, the puritanical censorship which existed both commercially and judicially at the time. When there were no black people in TV sitcoms, it wasn't a "stereotypical view" that there were no black people; it was a pernicious influence of the discriminatory and racist Zeitgeist, but it doesn't mean that anybody believed that there were no black people. In addition, in the case of gay fiction, there was a well-developed and successful business in the pulp trade aimed at gay readers; so in terms of sheer count, the number of "happy endings" (hmm...) very likely completely swamped the numbers of books coming out in the mainstream press that had any gay characters at all, even in minor roles, much less requiring them to come to a sad end.

The removed section would make an interesting addition to some other article, perhaps one about discrimination against LGBT people, but it isn't a stereotypical view of LGBT people, and so doesn't belong here. I've deleted the section. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. It might be wise to add it to Media portrayal of LGBT people? Shouldn't be hard to put that in. Sxologist (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that it's an important topic and articles such as The 100 (TV series) and Lexa (The 100) link to "bury your gays", it obviously needs to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. And I do see that Mathglot stated that "the removed section would make an interesting addition to some other article." Pinging Sandstein, who added the section. I remember when he added it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I had been looking for a happy home for it and couldn't find one, and Media portrayal of LGBT people sounds great! Thank you for finding that. "Bury your gays" is already a redirect, so it could be retargeted once the merge is done. I've added redirect category {{R with possibilities}} (and a couple others) to the redirect, as this could conceivably be expanded into an article, and probably should be, if a volunteer stepped up. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, you could add it in to the Media portrayal of LGBT people in it's current form although I see you're seeking consensus of a few editors first. With regards to expansion into an article, do you mean a "bury your gays" trope article or something else? Sxologist (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, thanks for the ping, I agree with a merger to Media portrayal of LGBT people, which seems a more appropriate place for this material. Sandstein 07:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and merged the content to Media_portrayal_of_LGBT_people#"Bury_your_gays". Perhaps the position of the material could be improved, but that article is somewhat haphazardly organized in general. Sandstein 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rtanaka96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliveeeeoil. Peer reviewers: ZachMousseau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Winter 2019, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kodamehalba. Peer reviewers: TheCanolli23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020, between 20 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emhart34, Jacquelinebachrach.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NikosKouts4. Peer reviewers: Nick Mundy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Give us more detail and informatipn because school wants more than what y'all are putting around this point 41.150.243.175 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)