Talk:LGBTQ rights in Norway

Transgender rights in Norway

This article is about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, yet the article does not address transgender civil rights beyond certain sexual and marriage rights. Important civil rights issues facing transgender people include: access to transition-related healthcare, access to legal recognition of name and gender, gender identity and expression specific anti-discrimination laws, access to gender-specific public facilities, medical gatekeeping, among others.

Also, please be aware that something which protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation is not an "LGBT" anti-discrimination ordinance. It is an LGB anti-discrimination law. Transgender civil rights is being held back due to 'little t' attitude in LGBT politic and I feel it is important for an encyclopedia to be accurate about the distinction between LGB and T civil rights, and to distinguish when appropriate. If someone who understands the language could please check paragraphs 349a and 135a of the penal code to see if it explicitly protects gender identity and expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady unleashed (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not an LGBT article, but an LG article. It needs to be expanded. The Norwegian treatment of trans* individuals has been heavily criticised internationally, and isn't even mentioned. Neither is the new anti-discrimination law (prop 88/2013) that came into effect January 1st, 2014. Jadzia626 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

History behinde Fredom to join the armed forces in Norway.

Discusion. Excuse the inconsitancies (Not very good with computers)

Can anyone tell me exactly when it became lagal to join the military in norway? The exact time and date? How many vote were for and how many against ETC. Does this also aply to the Norwiegian special forces? Or ar the special forcesd in Norwar under difernt legislation? I would also like to know whether, as an agency of law, if there was any hinderance on homosexuals, male & female, on joining the police force? Is there anyone who can tell me where I can find full details of the history behind this repeal? I want to know in what context, pre 1979 prohibeted homosexuals from being in the military. Have there ever been special forces oporatives who were gay? I have heard of a couple in our SAS, though trying to find the exact information is proving dificult. Also, if there have been any other high ranking governmet or royal persons, or gay Special forces oporatives such as the American Navy Seals, or the South African Reki, if spelt righ, please let me know. Also, I have recived several massgaes from the wiki comunity regarding me enquries, my apologies in advance, I habent really got the hand on wiki yet.

Any way, have there ever been laws baring homosexuals from the polie, please do not tell me about countries under Shari'ah law, I'm not interested on their policies, as I already knoe they hate homosexuals.

I would also like to know if there have been any gay couples or famials who have hade one man in the army or special forces, the other a police man, and another in some other form of high risk or authorative job, such as a bouncer or a security guard. You can also Email me @ Drew3712@hotmail.co.uk I take it this is going to apear on the "discusions" page, if not, sorry, I'm just not very good at computing. Civilian knowledge (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On other topics. Plicies of police forces and sexual orientation and service.

Does anyone know if there are any policies held by police force regarding sexual orientation and service. Although many countries allow homosexuals to join the military, and or police. Are there any discriminatory policies held within the police although you may not be barred out right. For example, a policy witch bars homosexuals from working on cases involving under 18 or not having high ranking jons? Derw3712@hotmail.co.uk Civilian knowledge (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Norway. 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/20101122235101/http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf to http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617115242/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2479146.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2479146.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314051755/http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12795 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12795

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) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Norway. 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/20120808001707/http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Hotspots/GayGuide-action-Country-countryid-736.html to http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Hotspots/GayGuide-action-Country-countryid-736.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) 11:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Orange?

The image caption in the box on the right says:

Location of LGBT rights in Norway (orange)

in Europe (white) – [Legend]

Where do these come from? Even the source says

caption = {{map caption|location_colour=dark green|region=[[Europe]]|region_colour=dark grey|legend=Europe-Norway.svg}}

... or (clearly) not orange and white. Where are those color names coming from? It's also correct in the file itself. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Age of consent in summary table

I wonder why there seems to be an objection to a more precise and descriptive notation in the summary table under age of consent, from this, being returned to this (Since 1972)

Some weeks ago, I returned it to previous version following a change by Lmharding, a wp:sock, in this edit; that one was actually better (more precise, less misleading) than the version since reinstated several times by fellow IP 188.252.199.203.

Other phrases tried:

• N/A efn|Norway has not had a separate age of consent for homosexual acts.
• (Always equal–since the 1972 legalization of sex between men)
• (Norway has never had a separate age of consent for homosexual acts.)
  • (Since 1972) reinserted
• N/A efn|Norway has not had a separate age of consent for homosexual acts.

Rather than following other articles that might also have a less clear style as edit summary suggests, "As seen on many "LGBT rights in x country" articles on English Wikipedia, most countries have same year when it was decriminalized and equal age of consent, look for example: Bhutan, Slovenia, Montenegro, Barbados etc.", I'd rather try to change those articles. In any case, in this article, can we get to something that is both precise and agreeable to all editors? I'd like to discuss, please. 203.0.31.200 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Slapdown

I apologize for unintentionally stepping over a line @user:Mathglot. Your [reversion] came as less of a surprise than your edit summary. I understand about sources, but I was not changing any fact, only suggesting a --slightly-- different way of expressing that fact. As it turns out, there does not appear to be a citation specifically for the age of consent, so I am going to find one and add it. (Unless I should not do that, in which case please let me know).

Not thinking I needed a NEW source, I went ahead and made the change, following what I understood to be an acceptable approach ([from here]). I "cited" the talk page (it was only meant to show what I was thinking and start a discussion if needed, though) just to show my reasoning. In addition, I thought my edit would be uncontroversial -- not that it would would necessarily be accepted -- as it RETURNS to an earlier version of what had been in the table for some time, which to my mind is a more accurate expression of the situation.

Can you please help me here, Mathglot? I was genuinely trying to do the right thing. I recognize my edit summary was a little sketchy (some difficulties with circumstance, keyboarding, etc., which is WHY I referred to the talk page), but did I really do it so badly to need this as a response: "No consensus for this. You can't just blindly cite the Talk page, containing a comment by you and no agreement to it, as a basis for changing the article. You need to provide citations to reliable sources, backing up your assertions."? As mentioned, no factual change and I thought I was following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I would appreciate any discussion you're willing to have. 203.1.80.1 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

IP 203, no worries, and I apologize, too, if I came across too harsh. You seem like you're trying to do the right thing, and as I don't have time to look this situation over in detail just now, I won't object if you revert my change and attempt to gain consensus, or at least, comment from other users. I'll be happy to comment more on the merits at a later time. If you still feel you need help after several days, or if it's crickets here, please ping me, and I'll have a look then. Good luck, and thanks for reaching out. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: In summary table, describing age of consent

Should the summary table show "since 1972" as the date that "equal ages of consent" for heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior came into force, or would saying something like "never unequal" (see above section for approaches) be clearer? 203.0.31.200 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, (NHIB/UKOM) guidance

The NHIB has issued guidance to disallow medical procedures on underage individuals. The organization has stated: "The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, (NHIB/UKOM) has deemed puberty blockers, cross-sex-hormones & surgery for children & young people experimental, determining that the current “gender-affirmative” guidelines are not evidence-based and must be revised.". This is referenced from a couple of Norwegian articles I cannot read. I believe this is notable enough to be included in the article, but without a better understanding of Norwegian I'm concerned with translations being wrong.

• https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/jlwl19/vil-ha-tryggere-behandling-for-barn-som-vil-skifte-kjoenn-mangelfull-kunnskap-om-risikoen
• https://ukom.no/rapporter/pasientsikkerhet-for-barn-og-unge-med-kjonnsinkongruens/sammendrag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

B rating

rater says 90% with this being B or higher but i think that needs some kind of review thing so i made it C for now Sebbog13 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)