Talk:Queer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rephrasing needed for the first sentence

I will vocalize this request because I'm so new to this that I cannot make the changes myself -which makes sense to me don't get me wrong- and due to the fact I identify as a queer person. May I add that this article is the reason why I decided to start participating in the Wikipedia project. I will be brief in my description and hope this will not translate as rude or something of the kind.

So the sentence in question is: Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender.

1. It lacks a term related to self-identification so it’s like it is implied that someone could call someone else queer even if they don’t identify as such themselves. I suppose this wouldn't be accurate unless it is used as a slur which is not our case here. Also, there are several people in the LGBT+ community who do not identify as queer, an example could be homonormative people. Let's not forget that in the LGBTQIA+ soup there is a Q that stands by itself, alongside the other letters.

2. I think that the term heterosexual should be removed because by default heterosexuals are not a sexual minority.

3. I think that the term cisgender should be removed as well because one, for example, can very easily be at the same time queer, bisexual and cis in the sense that their gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

Concluding I would rephrase this sentence towards this direction: Queer is an umbrella term used as a self-identifier related to sexual and/or gender minorities.

Perhaps I could add this definition which is short but I find it pretty decent so that it's clear where I stand concerning this term. Personally, I identify mainly with the last sentence. Maybe it could be considered as a reliable source because it is from https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary

Queer: One definition of queer is abnormal or strange. Historically, queer has been used as an epithet/slur against people whose gender, gender expression and/or sexuality do not conform to dominant expectations. Some people have reclaimed the word queer and self identify as such. For some, this reclamation is a celebration of not fitting into norms/being “abnormal.” Manifestations of oppression within gay and lesbian movements such as racism, sizeism, ableism, cissexism, transmisogyny as well as assimilation politics, resulted in many people being marginalized, thus, for some, queer is a radical and anti-assimilationist stance that captures multiple aspects of identities.

PhantomPower48 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)PhantomPower48

It's not only a self-identifier, and most non-self-identifying use is not as a slur; e.g., there is an entire academic field called queer theory, and one called queer studies; the rest of the lead goes on to note that, and to mention those who dislike the term, so the opening sentence is OK as-is with regard to that. I do agree there is room for making the last part clearer, since as it is currently written, it could be interpreted the same way as e.g. "non-binary people are those who are not men or women", i.e. as saying people have to be not [the thing on the left side of the or] and also not [the thing on the right side of the or]. Perhaps it could be revised to "...who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender"? -sche (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that I should make the following clarification. I am strictly concerned on how the term queer is used by people and for people and not at all -at this point- in any other usage of it. This is why I believe the self-identification part is extremely important when we talk about the term queer. It is on purpose that I make no reference on how it is used elsewhere.

In the second paragraph queer identities are mentioned. Through point number 1, I simply suggest to reinforce this approach in the first sentence of this article since the term is used in this case as a reference to people. --PhantomPower48 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

While in some cases queer is used to refer only to people who identify as such, that’s not always the case. One could discuss queer people in history, for example. I don’t think the sources support limiting it to self-identification. I support the change to the latter part of the sentence proposed by sche.--Trystan (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. I hadn’t thought of the description part in a historical perspective but mostly as description of how the term is used currently. Don’t you think that the self-identification part is missing from the text though in general? Maybe it should be included in the definition part somewhere as well.

The second part of the sentence I think it is a much trickier one.

On the heterosexual part I do understand that there are people in the LGBT+ community who do not want to leave room for heterosexuals due to privileges they have experienced. Personally, I also understand that some heterosexuals are not necessarily heteronormative. They may have a different gender expression than the dominant one and for me they may claim the term queer. If it has been used for you as a slur and you want to claim it, I’d say go for it. So it just crossed my mind, what about changing heterosexual to heteronormative?

The cisgender part -again personally- I think it is a pretty straight forward one. To my understanding it is ok to identify with the gender you were assigned at birth and in the same time identify as queer because you have a fluid sexuality for instance. I'm not sure I get why this part is in the description.

I mean if both terms -heterosexual and cisgender- are there as historical references of how queer has been used I think it should be crystal clear they are there for this reason and that this does not describe it's current use. Since it is the first sentence of the article and it is in present tense it could be easily confused as a definition instead of being perceived as a description. This makes it even more important to fix. Still I don't see how cisgender has a place there because it is not a synonym of fulfilling gender stereotypes. So concluding, what about something more or less along those lines: Queer has been used as an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities who were not heteronormative or cisgender-normative. Currently it used as a self-identifier or a slur... or perhaps Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative. It can be used as a self-identifier or a slur... --PhantomPower48 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a self-identifier or slur, though. Most current non-self-identifying use is not as a slur. It is commonly used neutrally or approbatively to identify people who are not heterosexual regardless of whether or not they are known to use the term themselves, especially when talking about groups and not individuals. People who use the term to describe other people would probably refrain from referring to a specific person individually as queer if that person actively objected to the term, but (that's true of many or most terms, and) the person will still routinely be included in e.g. a statistic about how many "queer people" are in a population. For example, here's an article that says a "study shows that only 48 percent of Americans from the ages of 13 to 20 identify as 'exclusively heterosexual,' meaning that the majority of young Americans are queer". The writers did not ask if the not-exclusively-heterosexual people in the study self-identified with the term "queer", they just used it descriptively. The discussion in the body, and in summary form in the other paragraphs of the lead, about how some (minority of?) people dislike the term (or think it shouldn't be used except as a self-identifier or slur) seems to adequately cover that dislike.

You're right that "it is ok to identify with the gender you were assigned at birth and in the same time identify as queer". The reason the lead mentions "cisgender" is that it's saying "queer" can refer to anyone who is "not [...] cisgender" as well as anyone who is "not heterosexual"; for example, a straight trans person could identify as queer. Some (many?) people only use the term to describe people who are "not heterosexual", and might be unfamiliar with the broader usage, which is one reason the lead should make it clearer, and the body also needs be updated to explain it—currently, the only occurrence of the word "cisgender" in the entire article is in the lead, which runs afoul of the guideline that the lead should summarize the body. (And I should see if I can find enough clear citations to add the broader sense to our sibling project Wiktionary...) IMO we should probably take a look at how other references define "queer" and see how much "weight" is given to the "not hetero, or not cis" versus the "not hetero" definition; it might (or might not) be appropriate to split the current first sentence into two sentences, one giving the "not heterosexual" definition and another explaining that broader usage also exists.

-sche (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify things I would like to ask separately about the two sentences I suggest in my last text.

1. What about replacing the first sentence with Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative. Please see arguments above [i.e. cisgender is not a synonym of fulfilling gender stereotypes, cisnormative is. Or one can be a cisgender heterosexual but without having the gender expression expected by society (meaning they are not cisnormative). This example has been -historically and still is- valid. So since they could have been called out in the street queer aren't they entitled to claim the term as a self-identifier? They are as entitled to self-identify as queer as some transgender people absolutely hate to be called as such and totally don't identify with this term].

2. Maybe add one sentence just after the first including the info that queer can be used as a self-identifier. As mentioned above I find that this is something dangerously missing from this wiki page and I believe it should be included in the description part somehow. One suggestion would be It can be used as a self-identifier or a slur... [the three dots imply that there could be more information added to this sentence like as -sche mentions previously the differentiation of the use between individuals and groups of people]. Another suggestion could simply be Amongst other things, queer can be used as a self-identifier. Also please let's keep in mind all those individuals who do not identify with this umbrella term i.e. (some?) homonormative people, some transgender people e.t.c. -PhantomPower48 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhantomPower48: A couple of points regarding wording, based on grammar or logic:

• I'd avoid "is a term for sexual and/or gender minorities who are X" (or "not X") because (as I see it) it applies to individuals, not groups like "minorities". You can never be sure if every member of some minority you name will identify that way.
• I'd be careful of the construction "who were not heteronormative or cisgender-normative", or more generally any construction of the type "not A or B", because of an inherent grammar/logic trap there, involving ambiguity based on how you parse the phrase; i.e., is it, "either (not A), or B", or is it, "Neither A nor B", or something else?

Oh, now I see that -sche interpeted it as "either not A or not B", which is more likely what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your ...gender minorities which are not normative (and begging the "individual/group" issue for the moment) is this what you really meant? Some trans* folk are heteronormative, for example. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: (I'm sure you understand this, but for the record) "either not A or not B" is not just how I interpret it; see the section directly above this one. (It's also common sense that the lead is not saying queer people have to be "both not heterosexual and also not cisgender", since the various people and groups named as queer in the body of the article include cisgender people.) However, the body needs to substantiate/document the use of queer to refer to people who are heterosexual but not cisgender (e.g. straight trans woman), in order for the "cisgender" clause to stay in the lead... I'll try to find time to research and add something about that. -sche (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhantomPower48: Regarding "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative": this is inaccurate, to the extent that practitioners of BDSM (or polyamory, or any of a number of other things) constitute a sexual minority which is not normative, but are not inherently queer. AFAIK, the term refers to people who are not heterosexual (or who are not cisgender), not just to anyone who is not normative, except in limited and not-widely-accepted uses which the article already mentions (uses in reference to Queer heterosexuality and the like). Also, "queer" is not limited to referring to members of the aforementioned categories who are not normative; in uses like the one I quoted above ("the majority of young Americans are queer") the population referred to undoubtedly includes some "normative"/assimilationist/nonradical people. If one were to go into enough detail to write an accurate set of sentences, one would write something roughly along the lines of...the rest of the lead that is already present, which already notes who uses it with connotations of radical vs assimilationist, and who objects to it and why, and that it sometimes refers to non-LGBT people.
Regarding the statement that "queer" does refer to cisgender heterosexual people sometimes... this is sort-of mentioned when the lead mentions "those who think the term should apply only to LGBT people - not to any and all sexual minorities", but it should probably be mentioned directly (not just "in the negative"). Whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, I'm not sure. Possibly the lead sentence needs to be split into several sentences to mention the three(?) main different definitions, though I suppose the first sentence could still cover them all if expanded to something like "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender, or simply who are not normative." This would need reliable sources, of course; I'll see what I can find. -sche (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual and cisgender" is to me highly problematic, as I myself regard myself as predominantly queer heterosexual and erratically cis. Perhaps the problem already starts at the umbrella? --Xact (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We go by the WP:Due weight of sources, and I don't see any issue with the wording. We don't use our personal experience to write content, and besides, if your heterosexuality and cisgenderness are not absolute, I don't see the contradiction anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! But we all use ourselves as referencepoints to some degree, in judgements of tast and value. Perhaps it is merely me who don't find it a contradiction in terms to be both cisgender, predominantly heterosexual and queer, if I'm not alone, it should be evident that the first sentence, as emblematic as it is, is not satisfactory, rather displeasing, indeed. I'm not writing content, simply arguing for a better, not yet produced emblematic opening of this entry.--Xact (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Among dictionaries:

• The narrowest definition of the word, "gay or lesbian", is the only one given by Cambridge and Collins. It is also given as a distinct definition alongside other definitions by the American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Oxforddictionaries.com. I will refer to this as "sense A".
• No dictionary I found defined the term as "non-heterosexual" (without also including "...or non-cisgender"), but I will refer to this as "sense B".
• A sense roughly matching the one our lead gives ("not heterosexual, or not cisgender", or roughly "LGBT") is given in the American Heritage Dictionary and MacMillan. I will refer to this as "sense C".
• The broadest, "non-normative"-based definition is given by Oxforddictionaries.com ("relating to a sexual or gender identity that does not correspond to established ideas of sexuality and gender, especially heterosexual norms") I will call this "sense D".
• Dictionary.com also gives a strange definition, "relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary", which might be intended to mean sense C or even D but which, as written, would weirdly include bisexuals and non-binary people but not (straight) trans men or trans women.
• Merriam-Webster does worse, splitting the word into several subsenses which, if taken together, roughly cover the scope of the term, but which are over-specific as definitions, generally being hyponyms, not synonyms: one subsense is "transgender", another is "relating to [...] sexual or romantic attraction that is not limited to people of a particular gender identity or sexual orientation", which would seem to make a straight man "queer" if he was attracted, in an entirely heteronormative way, to a woman who happened to be bi.

Among encyclopedias:

• Jodi O'Brien's 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, volume 1, says it refers to "sexualities that do not fit into society's assumptions of feminine or masculine heterosexuality" and later says "queer is often used as an umbrella term to denote sexual identity within a particular community", which would be sense B, except that her next sentence is "a queer community may be made up of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and so on", which is sense C.

Among other books:

• Sarah Prager's 2017 Queer, There, and Everywhere uses the same definition as our lead, "'queer' means anyone not totally straight or not totally cisgender" (sense C).
• Lee Airton's 219 Gender: Your Guide uses the narrower 'non-straight only' definition, saying "queer means, quite simply, non-heterosexual, or not straight" (sense B).

From this, I gather than the lead should mention definitions C (as it does) and B (as proposed in the section above this one), but mention of A (too dated, superseded) and D (too uncommon and disputed) are probably best left to the body. -sche (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling all that together. Based on those sources, I would support limiting the lead to sense C and keeping all the others for discussion in the body of the article. The rest of the article uses sense C, so in setting out the lead definition that identifies the article's topic and scope, I don't see the advantage to bringing up sense B just to move away from it.--Trystan (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. Admittedly, the article in fact didn't mention "[not] cisgender" as being part of the definition ever again outside that one sentence in the lead, except by implication from including the 'T' in several mentions of 'LGBT', but I've now updated the "Definitions" section to fix that by mentioning senses A, B, and C. Sense D is currently implied (as if assuming people already know it) in the text of the last bullet point of the "Controversy" section, but should be made explicit (I may take a crack at that later). -sche (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you -sche for all this research. I think it would be worth to have some reliable sources to backup the first sentence of the description and that's something missing for now. Personally, I am more aligned with the Oxforddictionaries.com approach and Sarah Prager's (sense D and C respectively) because they seem to me more contemporary. I will do some research myself on the self-identifier part since I consider it extremely important as well as the polyamory and bdsm approach that was mentioned. I think nowadays some polyamorous people and/or belonging in the bdsm community they could very easily claim the term queer for themselves, even if this wouldn't be the case 50 years ago. Anyway, will be back as soon as possible.

Note: I think it's obvious that english is not my first language so I wanted to make sure that it's clear that I'm not here to play games with words, my interest is in the essence. -PhantomPower48 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Early use section - structural issues

There are a few structural/presentation issues with the 'Origins and early use' section. The first is that the section starts off with some content which isn't in any subsection, which I recall Flyer pointing out can be a problem for people who click through to the body from the TOC and expect the first subsection to be where the content starts. A bigger issue is that instead of presenting a chronological account of how usage evolved (which AFAICT is how other RS cover it), we segregate all instances of use as a pejorative into one subsection and then instances of self-ID into a different subsection, with the result that the prose goes from the 1890s to the early 1900s to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, only to then (upon reaching the next subsection) jump back in time to the (1900s and then) 1930s and 1940s. I may have a go at WP:BOLDly, WP:SOFIXIT-ly) re-sorting the content into chronological order later. -sche (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing the definition of a Word that has for centuries meant what it meant to fit neo-political movement is just plain wrong

Godwin

As the title states, to change the definition of a word from what it originally meant for centuries, to what it is now, somehow and specifically including LGBT community, which originally meant "odd", and "Unusual" to encompass "A umbrella term for sexual gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender", is an act of political / historical and cultural re-writing and recent hijacking which wikipedia should combat and not allow. Just because America in the recent 30 years has had a growing LGBT movement demanding political and cultural reforms and because the word "queer" has been overused within slang language to define a "Not a heterosexual" person to the degree of normalizing the word, should not change its original meaning for "Queer" ie, primarily defined as "odd / strange" which is a word that can also be used for inanimate objects. The word itself does not in any way define anyone by their sex or Gender. The word itself ( Originally ) never had a malignant connotation. This 'Evolution' of the word 'Queer', should be retracted to what it was, and the obvious politically / culturally motivated revisionism of words and its meaning, for example from its original meaning to the article page starting with : "Is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not.. etc" Absolutely not, and this change is a recent one, its ridiculous, and request it to be further edited to what its originally, and neutrally meant. Biomax20 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) @Biomax20: You've been here long enough to know WP:NOTFORUM. We're not a dictionary, which is where you'd find that meaning. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: Then whats the purpose of this article? To redefine a established word to fit a neo-movement narrative? Propaganda? Sure doesnt sound very encyclopedic. Biomax20 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC) To describe a new meaning to a word and its  context. We describe all movements. Again, please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject.  EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Same as every article - to relay what WP:Reliable sources say with WP:Due weight. If you have evidence that that is not being done, then present that. Otherwise there is nothing to properly discuss here. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: Oh were going to be emotional, abusive and slamming down dictats and warnings now that someone opposes a clear hijacking and concerted effort to change status quo normalcy to something different, even when academia is involved. Stop abusing whatever powers you have, this talk page is a public discussion area. If YOU dont like MY opposition to the ridiculous changes to meaning, may i recommend you go do something else with your life? "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject." Excuse me? What are you supposed to be? Information Gestapo? Do you own this public forum? This is not a personal dislike, this is rational opposition and I will not be silenced. Biomax20 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Biomax20, I came here to find info on the word queer and was instead exposed to a groups new interpretation of a very old word. As well, Biomax20 doesn't sound upset to me, or pov, with the exception of the justifiable upset they feel seeing a word be hijacked and it's meaning and history erased. This is wikipedia, please stick to facts and not what small amounts of the population/groups wish the facts were. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:5C09:7C31:670B:1D07 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It is not primarily designed as an information source about words, but about concepts. To put it another way, the topic of this article is not "all possible meanings of the word queer", but one specific concept expressed by that word: "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender". The article summarizes what reliable sources say on that subject. What you and Biomax20 are objecting to is the evolution of language that we are just neutrally recording; Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs.--Trystan (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@IP, Im sorry but this is completely nonsensical. The article explains very well the original meanings of the word, as well as its newer meanings. Language is not something static, frozen in time forever, quite the opposite. Anyway, did you guys heard that they are trying to change the meaning of Bluetooth, a danish king, into some sort of "wireless technology" ??? 😱😱😱 don't they know that words should stick to their original meaning FOREVER?. - Daveout(talk) 14:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What a load of cumulus! Of course, cumulus once referred to a type of cloud, but people shouldn't cling on to an old meaning when it has become a synonym for 'b*ll*cks'. This is not a dictionary. A bit tough on the meteorologists who wish to cling to the old meaning of the word in their rarified metaphorical atmosphere, but language moves on. (Anyone who doesn't understand the very serious point being made here is not of sufficient linguistic or analytical capability to engage with an encyclopaedia, even one such as Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.5.99 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Flux originally meant diarrhea, while leeches (the animal) got their name because they were used by leeches, a word used for centuries to mean doctor. Awe originally meant fear or dread -- witness the word awful. Fantastic derives from a French borrowing meaning imaginary or make-believe. Meat originally meant any solid food that could be eaten and included bread and hay for the livestock; when it came to be used specifically for edible animal flesh, the broad word was replaced by victuals, a word that has since dropped out of the language entirely. Languages are living things, and like all living things, they change and evolve. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral self-identifier?

Even in contexts in which the word is intended to be a positive self-identifier, it isn't a neutral self-identifier judging by my own experience of actual offence as someone too young for the pejorative sense to have been 'acceptable' (though it never was) and too old for the later reclamation to have reduced the level of offence that the word's use therefore has for me. It is definitely and certainly not neutral when, as demonstrated by a television programme just now, it has caused me offence, caused me deep infuriation that I couldn't stop myself having at its use, that caused me to puff and pant and feel anxious even twenty minutes afterwards and my heart to feel very bad as part of the anxiety caused by the use of the word in self-description by someone shown on the programme. I would not at all call that "neutral" - it absolutely and emphatically was not, as it caused me such reaction. It may also be intended to be positive but that specific use, which happened to cause me offence, was therefore not positive but is negative whenever something causing me offence (and does so regardless of context but just by the fact of how offensive the word is due to its connotations that developed for me in my childhood). It is offensive (regardless of what people intend) - it is not neutral or positive regardless of what the intention is as it is the *effect*, on me, not the intention, which matters as to whether I was caused offence or not and, as the use on the programme caused me offence, it is therefore offensive even if it wasn't supposed to be. As something offensive, when used on that occasion at least, it therefore cannot be neutral (it clearly has not been experienced in that way) and it isn't positive when someone is caused offence by something aspaa (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Aspaa, I'm sorry that you had this experience today, and that your experience of this word hasn't been positive. This article has a section about criticism of the use of the word as an identifier, and if you know of reliable sources that could be added, feel free to be bold and add them or mention them here if you'd like. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

I obviously mean, that the article is unclear and needs specific examples.

For example, say that "The term queer is an umbrella term that includes all sexual minorities, but is added to acronym LGBTIQ, to included others, ... such as asexual, pansexual, panromantic, etcetera." Something like these specific examples would help the article be clearer and more informative. 71.47.254.61 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is indeed unclear. The lede immediately jumps into the sort of jargon that the non LGBTQ+ 'community' throw their hands up at and they then conclude that the word 'confused' is the best description.89.241.28.88 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Resurrecting Mens Issues Wikiproject by rating this article

Hello- I believe that Queer men need more representation on the men's issues Wikiproject, hence I am rating it

Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Flagrant" appearances

@Trystan: In response to your revert of my caption edit, page 13 of the given source mentions the start of "the labeling and self-identification of men as 'queer' only around the middle of the twentieth century; before then, most men were so labeled only... by assuming the sexual and other cultural roles ascribed to women." It goes on about how that label was applied to "fairies" or effeminate men before that time. Am I misreading this? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that passage on page 13 is a bit perplexing. Elsewhere in the book, where it talks about queer and fairy identities in more detail, it sets out a clear distinction between masculine queers and effeminate fairies:

• "But queer did not presume that the men it denoted were effeminate, for many queers were repelled by the style of the fairy and his loss of manly status, and almost all were careful to distinguish themselves from such men. They might use queer to refer to any man who was not 'normal,' but they usually applied terms such as fairy... only to those men who dressed or behaved in what they considered to be a flamboyantly effeminate manner. They were careful to draw such distinctions in part because the dominant culture failed to do so." (at 16)
• "Many queer-identified men were appalled by the dominant public image of homosexuals created by the audacious behavior of fairies on the streets, of course. Not surprisingly, some of them were aghast at the 'flagrant' displays at the balls." (at 298)--Trystan (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, this makes more sense. So can we add maybe we can edit the caption to be a bit clearer: Many queer-identified men distanced themselves from the "flagrant" public image of gay men as effeminate "fairies". Something like that anyway? Wolfdog (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Trystan (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

For you to point out in the top section that the majority of gays still view the word queer as a slur and offensive and it's a more vocal minority of gay people who identify themselves by the term. Most gay people still find it offensive, including me. I'm anti censorship, people should be aloud to say what they want, bit I can be offended by it. Not all gay people identify as 'queer', wierd gay people who give normal gay people a bad name do. That's my opinion I don't want that added as it's not a fact, but this entire article gives the impression that all gay people support this, when a majority do not, and that is a fact. 2A00:23C6:F73B:2A01:A8A6:3FD7:E7A2:41F4 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss this, and provide sources for the majority of gays still view the word queer as a slur and offensive and it's a more vocal minority of gay people who identify themselves by the term. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cwalker96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving the line "homosexual people who identify as queer" and updating sources for "queer heterosexuality"

@User:Mathglot: Thanks for your continued help as I learn the ropes!

I've found a more recent and well-written piece on the topic of whether straight/cis/allosexual people can identify as queer and I'm about to make new suggested updates to the "queer heterosexuality" section. This more recent source talks about "LGBTQ+" people rather than "homosexual" people so I'm going to change that sentence in the lead to "LGBTQ people" rather than "homosexual people who identify as queer." I double-checked Mortimer and there's only one isolated instance of "homosexual" anywhere in that article; the author is not saying "necessarily homosexual people" -- Mortimer uses "gay" almost everywhere else.

The phrase "homosexual people who identify as queer" could feel anachronistic or even offensive to some readers, and it's not a phrase that is true to the source, which is why changing it feels so important to me. Very happy to chat more about this if you disagree or if my edits aren't sufficiently sourced! Thanks again. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@RadicalCopyeditor:, After the long explanation at your TP, I don't have the time right now (hopefully later?) to look into your specific changes. Just a brief comment for now: we don't avoid possibly offensive language at Wikipedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED), neither do we engage in gratuitously contentious or offensive terms (see MOS:LABEL + WP:OM); once again, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES applies. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the desire to remove homosexual especially as a modifier for people, but be aware that whereas you're of course right wrt to how the term may be viewed when used casually (especially by non-allies), the term is still widely used in academic scholarship with no special animus (see examples) but strictly with a desire for precision, so you have to draw a distinction when assessing how homosexual is being used in a source, and how best to summarize the material here for a general readership. Anyway, Mortimer is a weak and non-academic source, and something better is needed. Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, To clarify, I have no issue with the word "homosexual"; that's not what's at play here (as evidenced by the fact that I just rewrote a whole page about homosexuality in the DSM, which appropriately uses the word "homosexual" a whole lot). Sorry for not taking the time to more clearly explain the problems with the phrase "homosexual people who identify as queer." The issue here is actually one of accuracy (and precision). Saying "homosexual people who identify as queer" is equivalent to saying "transsexual people who identify as non-binary" or "Hispanic people who identify as Chicanx" -- "homosexual" is not an umbrella term for all non-straight people (at least not in this context), but that's the implication in this phrasing. As you noted, Mortimer is a weak source and my guess is the author didn't take the time to learn how best to talk about the full spectrum of LGBTQ people, so they used "gay" as a catch-all and, in one instance, "homosexual." That was sloppy and inaccurate, and this lack of precision was made worse by the phrasing "who identify as" (which does not come from Mortimer). That phrasing implies that queer people are *actually* homosexual, but just choose to call themselves queer. Following the protocol you helpfully guided me to understand, I've found a better source (still not academic but more well-researched and more recent), and edited that lead sentence in a way that aligns with that new source. I hope this helps explain things better; as before, apologies for not taking the time to more fully explain myself before. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

209.222.170.87 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I wanna edit

 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 may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Mention genderqueer-ness somewhere in the section Intersex and Queer Identities. Grandma got ran over by a reindeer (talk) 19:30, 15 December 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

thata is good 50.115.71.18 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

I think we should add a section of criticism of this term or even why it was added to LGBT and how many gay men and lesbian women are against it being used officially rather than a side term just like chicks to be used instead of women officially 169.255.185.25 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell the article already covers opposition to the reappropriation of the term. Is there anything specific you feel is missing? Madeline (part of me) 20:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Source

• https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/10/queer-or-gay-slur-debate/

Bluerasberry (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

It might be more accurate to have the first sentence of the article go like:

“Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or cisgender; in a broader context, it defines those who suffer inequality in terms of sex, gender, pronoun and orientation.”

Forwhy: Being cis-het doesn’t guarantee not being queer. Some topics not covered by “not being heterosexual or cisgender” but covered by “those who suffer inequality in terms of sex, gender, pronoun and orientation”: •intersex people •Not a ‘strange’ gender identity but a ‘strange’ gender expression. ‘Unusual’ gender expressions such as various behaviors, mannerisms, roles, interests, and appearances. Like a feminine boy who doesn’t call himself trans or gay. •People who want to be called ‘unexpected’ pronouns even though they describe themselves as cisgender-heterosexual. •A person who is heterosexual and biromantic or a person who is heterosexual and panromantic basically any person who is heterosexual but not heteroromantic • There are three aspects to sexual or romantic orientation: identity, attraction, behavior. These three may differ due to various legal restrictions, social pressures or embarrassments.

 Although someone defines themselves as hetero. and behaves in this direction, the attraction they feel may be different.
 Although someone defines himself as hetero. the attraction they feel and the behaviors they hide may be different.

… •So on and on Semiherdil5 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello Semiherdil5, and welcome to Wikipedia! You are currently requesting a re-write for the first sentence in the lede of an article. This topic area is contentious for many people. As such, there is a high liklihood that there are editors who may contest this edit and desire a discussion to generate consensus due to the prominence of this edit's placement.

For this reason, it is my belief that it would be better to attempt to have such a discussion now rather than make this edit through the edit request process.

If you are confident in your edit, once you meet the autoconfirmed criteria, you can make the edit yourself boldy, though make sure to follow the recommended process in the event it is challenged by another editor.

Cheers, and happy editing! —Sirdog (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023

Change "desires" under "other usages" to "identity." This enforces "Queer" as an identiy, rather than a set of feelings. Zoggy woggies (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing it to "identity" wouldn't work, because it is contrasting that usage to referring to "identity or community". However, it is not clear on what "an objective fact describing a person's desires" is intended to mean, so I have removed that portion of the sentence.--Trystan (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Diminutive term

A relatively small syntax correction, but nonetheless an important one.

The use of the term 'several' in the paragraph relating to "Criticism" has a diminutive effect. A synonym for this word in this context would be 'few' which is misleading.

Indeed, the article then goes on to say that use of the word queer "marks a social and political divide in the LGBT community" which is no small thing.

I therefore propose changing this word to 'many' as it better communicates that this is an issue of greater significance and controversy within the LGBT community:

"many people and organizations, both LGBT and non-LGBT, object to some or all uses of the word for various reasons."

For context, there are far more people who identify using the more traditional terms gay, lesbian or bisexual than queer – see official UK Census 2021:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021

(NB: I've not corrected the misspelling of the word 'organisations' as I know this is also a controversial issue; one I'm not touching with a barge-pole!) Greg (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of good sourcing on the point, I think some would be the most neutral term to use here.--Trystan (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

proposed changes in lede

I propose to change the lede as follows:

Queer is a slur used against LGBT people. Originally meaning 'strange' or 'peculiar', queer came to be used pejoratively against LGBT people in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, LGBT activists, such as the members of defunct Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more purportedly assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.

@Trystan you mention sources but the section you reverted had sources I added classifying the term queer as a slur specifically referring to LGBT people.

Tdmurlock (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed edits would be a fundamental change to the topic of the article, which is queer as a reclaimed umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so not all possible meanings of the word queer are included in that scope. The article discusses other meanings in "Origins and early use" because those meanings are relevant to understanding how the meaning that is the subject of this article evolved, but they are distinct topics. If sources warrant it, Queer (slur) could be created as a separate article; I would suggest going through the WP:AFC process.

The comment about sources in my edit summary was referring to the earlier edit to the lead I was also rolling back.--Trystan (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people in the first place points to the fact that the term queer is indeed a slur. The first sentence of the wikipedia page for the n-word says outright that it "is a racial slur used against black people". The fact that some individuals choose to reclaim the n-word, or that some LGBT people choose to reclaim the term queer, does not mean that those words aren't slurs. In fact, it's evidence of the opposite, these terms are reclaimed specifically because they are slurs. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the term nigger is that while it has been reclaimed by some black people, it is still overwhelmingly used as a racial slur. As a term it has not been reclaimed to anywhere near the degree that queer has by LGBTQ+ people, nor do those who have reclaimed the term use it as part of their identity in the same way that queer people do.

A more apt comparison here would be the terms faggot and tranny. Both have been reclaimed to some degree by parts of the LGBTQ+ community, as you will find individuals who use the term as part of their identity, however both terms are still seen predominantly as a pejorative slur within the wider community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Trystan here. Article leads follow their bodies, as the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article's content. Significantly more of the article's content is about the 40 year old reclamation of the term by queer people, and its modern non-pejorative usage by many LGBTQ+ individuals and allies. We already appropriately summarise in the lead the origins of the term as a pejorative in a manner and length appropriate to the content about that history in the article body.

On a potential Queer (slur) spin-off, I'd be concerned about it becoming a WP:POVFORK. I don't think contemporary sources really discuss the term in isolation from its modern non-pejorative usage. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though, if the sourcing truly supports it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree a Queer (slur) spin-off would make no sense. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the sourcing likely isn't there to support an article on queer as a slur, but wanted to raise it as a a possible option that could be explored. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of available sources are on queer as a reclaimed umbrella term, which is reflected in the structure of this article.--Trystan (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

being fair, even sources that cheerlead queer as a reclaimed umbrella term often go into how the term is controversial specifically because it originated as a slur. GLAAD's Media Reference Guide specifically acknowledges that the term Queer "is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community". Tdmurlock (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is so common in sources. Our article matching the approach in such sources seems like a good thing to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It already is reflected in the article with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The "Early pejorative use" and "Criticism" sections in particular go into it in-depth. The other sections of the article reflect the large volume of sources that explore other aspects of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I get how my comment could be misconstrued. I agree entirely with you that our article already matches the approach taken by many high-quality articles. I don't think it needs to be radically changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit reactive there! Substantially changing the scope of the article is a perennial issue, so it is easy to jump to conclusions. Happy to consider constructive proposals for change.--Trystan (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

overly narrow definition

queer, as discussed in queer theory, is a very broad term. as a cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous man, I identify as queer because I seek the destruction of gender and I actively work to subvert it.

language which was inclusive to me identifying as queer was previously part of this article. it seems as though over the last 5 years this article has shrunk the definition to only include non-cis or non-heterosexual people. if the sources which supported the previous versions have remained authoritative (I think this is true but I could be wrong) then I think we should place that line back into the summary.

People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

commie (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Queer, at this point, seems to have multiple, mutually exclusive definitions. There are sources claiming that queer is a slur that refers specifically to LGBT people. There are others that claim the term is not just not a slur, but rather has had it's definition broadened almost to the point of meaninglessness. I think the quality of this article is contingent on confronting the diversity of definitions and interpretations that seem to have arisen around the term, which unfortunately, is no simple task. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The various meanings are, as you say, mutually exclusive. Per WP:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "...articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." This article is about one meaning, and other meanings are only relevant to the extent they help inform the history and context of that concept.--Trystan (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree queer is too narrowly defined in this article, though it's difficult to give a concise description that fully describes queer precisely due to how general it is. That being said at minimum queer is generally agreed to include individuals who are not heteroromantic - yes it's possible to be heterosexual and not heteromantic. Considering how consistently this group is included in definitions of queer and that non-heteroromantic individuals are actually more common then non-cis people statistically it would seem a demographic worth mentioning. As such, at minimum, I'd recommend changing the description to explicitly include non-heteromantic individuals as being queer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.225 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Change "19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s," to "20th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, ". 154.47.98.113 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The anti-LGBT pejorative use dates from the late 1800s. The reclamation in the 1980s came about a century later.--Trystan (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Origin

c. 1500, "strange, peculiar, odd, eccentric," from Scottish, perhaps from Low German (Brunswick dialect) queer "oblique, off-center," which is related to German quer "oblique, perverse, odd," from Old High German twerh "oblique" (from PIE root *terkw- "to twist"). For the suggested sense evolution, compare cross (adj.). But OED is against this etymology on grounds of timing and sense. Source: Oxford Etymological 145.224.67.37 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This information is currently already in the article. Lewisguile (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

International use for pre-modern sexual minorities

There is a modern understanding of LGBT culture and the term queer. This article frames the term "queer" as a global multicultural umbrella term including all gender and sexual minorities which the term "LGBT" does not include. I question this, and want to ask if anyone can show sources that communities which have traditional non-binary, non-heterosexual cultures and roles have adopted the label queer.

• Category:Third gender
• Category:Gender systems

My intuition is that the term "queer" fits best in subcultures which are closer to United States cultural notions of the concept. The term LGBT has been popular for about 40 years, while the term queer has been popular for 20 years, and I am not convinced that the queer label is widely adopted. I feel like the concept that there can be LGBT people is nearly universal, but further notions of "queer", especially as a term which includes or supersedes or globally gathers traditional and indigenous identities, is not established with sources.

I propose as a remedy, this article get {{Globalize}} on it, until and unless we establish that the sourcing establishes global multicultural adoption of the term.

Here are some requests:

1. Can anyone show evidence that some traditional or indigenous communities, especially outside of the wealthy global north, have adopted the term "queer" or a translated equivalent as an global umbrella term to describe themselves?
2. Can anyone point to any international organization which makes a claim to meaningfully represent and speak on behalf of all sexual and gender minorities, and which advocates on behalf of all these people that "queer" is the term that everyone wants for self-description?

I have a suspicion that the sources cited in this article reflect the contemporary generation of people who are Internet-connected and who participate in global culture. I estimate that this is something like 30% of the world, and question whether applying the term "queer" to everyone else is really a globalized trend. It seems colonial to me. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

...this article get {{Globalize}} on it, until and unless we establish that the sourcing establishes global multicultural adoption of the term. I think the article currently does a reasonable job of highlighting global examples of queer identities, such that the globalize template would be unwarranted. There is always room for improvement, so canvassing more sources and summarizing what they say would always be welcome.

The article can only ever summarize what the available sources say on the topic, so unless the sources happen to address the very specific points you raise above, the article won't ever address those points. I don't think any source is ever going to claim that "queer" is the term that everyone wants for self-description and I don't see how the article makes anything close to that claim. Rather, it specifically talks about people who object to the label queer.--Trystan (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Trystan: The problem is that most of the cited sources are from the United States and they assume that readers are also. Although we are not doing WP:Original research, we can apply common sense to recognize when the authors are writing for a national audience rather than a global one. The cited source starts by saying, "Most people are familiar with the term LGBT", which is not true on a global scale, nor would it be reasonable to globalize the paper's other claims and assuming that most cultures have communities who actively label themselves with concepts like pansexual or asexual.

How would you feel about my changing the first sentence definition from

Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.

to

Queer is an American umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.

The sources cited - an American dictionary and the American Psychological Association - do not say that "queer" is an explicitly American concept, but those are culture-focused publications. I want to see a more global source. The second sentence, "From the late 1980s, queer activists began..." again refers to activists in the United States, and not anyone who felt that they were speaking for all sexual minorities in all societies. Again, those cited sources do not specifically say they are not global, but we should recognize that queer activism in NYC did not seek to represent or speak for indigenous traditions in rural India. When queer activists began using the term, they were talking about themselves, not applying the label to people in other cultures.

Do you follow, and can you think of a way to communicate this appropriately? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The term isn't confined to the US, so I would not support defining it as strictly American. The article makes clear that the reclamation happened in the US, and provides some examples of global use, but certainly doesn't make any claims about its prevalence in rural India. To make specific claims about how use of the term is geographically distributed would require secondary sources discussing that topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not just an American term and is used globally.

Just a quick trip to the German de:Queer article (as I happen to speak German) shows how the term is used as a term there widely in media, TV and paper, which even notes how German universities have queer studies courses. Raladic (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly object to the addition of text which further narrows this down to America. It's simply not accurate.

A quick search on Google Scholar for "queer identity global south" reveals some useful sources:

Indonesia and Malaysia: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15809-4_4

Africa: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=enchBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=queer+identity+global+south&ots=pEfmM9vnE3&sig=Dvnf0dKKBxaFPd47U2RfwtYtFlM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

China and Africa: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2059436420949985

Queer in the Global South: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10130950.2014.993832?needAccess=true

Queer in the Global South: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1wGSDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=queer+identity+global+south&ots=1KF2NQVIsx&sig=MYNrpTuSdfdpBZf-jxg7pV1q1Bk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=queer%20identity%20global%20south&f=false

Queer in the Global South: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-65021-0_7

Queer in the Global South: https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00382.x

Decolonising queer (for those in the Global South): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1744-8603-3-8

Queer in the Diasporas: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0950236X.2011.586773?needAccess=true

So obviously, the term is used when scholars and activists write in English, and you'd also expect an English-language bias when writing in that language. Clearly, there's going to be nuance in different regions of the world, and I support the effort to cover those. But I think that's different from claiming that the concept of "queerness" isn't used beyond the Global North. Lewisguile (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can cite from reliable sources that queer is considered an American term, this will be a different conversation. If you don't, this suggestion is really seeming like WP:OR

Even if you're right about it being a term confined to the US, which I don't agree with, you have to be able to prove it. WP:VNT and all that DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Brit here and it's definitely a term we use here without considering it an Americanism.

I don't think it's itnrinsically colonial for there to be an English-language term used to describe things outside the Anglosphere or outside the Global North. But in any case, to say that "queer" is an American term is simply not true. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile, DeputyBeagle, OwenBlacker, and Raladic: Can any of you please pick a source which establishes the term as global to use as a citation for the definition in the first sentence? I am aware that there is incidental use in many places, but I am asking if there is a source where the author is bold enough to say that "queer" is the umbrella term for the world, and not just be using the term incidentally to talk about their own community.

Can I please remove the American dictionary citation and the American Psychological Association citations for this, which I feel are American? Do you all feel that all of these sources here are equally valid as citations for this? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This page doesn't afaik claim the term to be global. If the intro started with "Queer is a global term", I'd oppose that.

It just states it as a term and you're reading it how you want to read it. It doesn't need a citation to prove it's not exclusive to America DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle: It really seems as if some editors here are arguing that it is a multinational term, because there is talk above demonstrating how various cultures and countries have use of the term. You are right, it does not need a citation to prove that it is not exclusive to America, but I do not think I am being unreasonable in asking if there are appropriate limits to how to use the term. When Wikipedia says, "Queer is an umbrella term..." to its global audience and we cite a paper which made that claim to a specifically American audience, then I feel we are changing the intent of the cited paper. How would you feel about the following change -

Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.

to

Queer is an umbrella term{{Where}} for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.

Queer is an umbrella term in some places for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.

Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is the English-language Wikipedia, so without any other qualifiers, it means "is an umbrella term in English". But saying that would be pedantic because everyone reading it is already reading English and presumably aware of that fact. Lewisguile (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is a multinational term, but I don't think anybody is arguing we should explicitly state it as global in the article beyond the mentions we have of non-US countries. If we add the qualifiers, it makes it more vague and confusing. We don't have to make any statement on where the term is used, leaving it without a location qualifier doesn't have to imply anything. DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

By List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population the largest English speaking populations include India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. I believe that this article takes a tone and authority as if it speaks for those cultures. Are the Hijra (South Asia) queer? One celebrity, Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, is on English language television in India. There are other such people and communities around the world who either use English or speak English. I feel that this article communicates that traditional and indigenous identities are queer, and I think that is an overreach not backed by sources. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand even slightly how it makes that claim, can you point out which parts of the article specifically act as if they speak for India, Pakistan, etc?

And in regards to your question about whether those people/groups are queer - As far as WP is concerned, if RS describe them as queer then they are, if they don't then we don't take a stand on it DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

One part of the article which makes an overreaching claim is, "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender." This is not accurate; the majority of the people in the world who are not heterosexual and not cisgender do not self-identify with the term queer or the concept it represents. The sources cited, a dictionary and an American organization, are inappropriate as reliable sources for communicating in Wikipedia's global context. You listed a lot of sources above; can I just pick an arbitrary one and switch out the citation? How about this one -

• Kole, Subir K (2007). "Globalizing queer? AIDS, homophobia and the politics of sexual identity in India". Globalization and Health. 3 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-3-8.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

It starts by saying, "Queerness is now global," and it goes on to say that "queers continue to identify themselves as hijras or kothis". The article overall talks about globalization of identity. I do not think it is a reliable source for the claim, but I think it is an improvement over what is there right now. Can you support adopt that source for the first sentence without other word changes, then be done. If anyone gets a better source then we can change out, but I want something that acknowledges multiculturalism. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it could in good faith be read as saying that every LGBTQ person identifies as queer. It is a term to describe it, but not everyone will identify that way. We don't need a caveat on it.

Also this article is specifically about the term queer so anywhere the term isn't relevant are inherently not part of the article. We dont need any caveats on the lede about whether it's a global term, it's just not relevant to the point of the article DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

> I don't think it could in good faith be read as saying that every LGBTQ person identifies as queer.

Yet it’s been claimed over and over. Is Wikipedia causing it? Probably not. Is Wikipedia reinforcing it? I’d say so. Right now, the very idea that some LGBT people oppose the Q-slur, let alone that some gender-diverse people don’t identify as the Q-slur, is confined to 1 sentence in the intro and 1 sub section called “Criticism”. This article has a pro-Q-slur slant.

The very use of “LGBTQ” instead of “LGBT” signals your position as pro-Q-slur too. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason lots of people think queer is an umbrella term is because that's how people use it. The common usage and scholarly consensus came before the article made that claim, not the other way around. Lewisguile (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The article you reference is an interesting read. I have no problem with you, or anyone else, attempting to summarise the specifics of the term as used in South Asia, using this or other articles. I guess I just don't see why we need to prove the term is global if we're not saying it's global?

I'm also a little weary (and wary, I guess) because we just had a discussion about whether queer is an umbrella term, and this feels like a rehash of that. So what do you want here? Do you want a section on the use of queer in the global south? Do you just want to add an additional reference to the first sentence of the lede without otherwise changing anything? Or are you angling to remove the first sentence altogether? Your answer here may help us resolve this quicker. Lewisguile (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Bluerasberry seems to be shopping various venues for consensus that not every gender or sexual minority across the world is aware of or identifies with the English umbrella term Queer, and therefore the article LGBTQ (about another, more inclusive English umbrella term) should be re-renamed to exclude the Q.

The reasoning feels POINTy and a bit motivated, and seems to address a straw version of these articles which make overreaching prescriptive claims about these terms and who they apply to—not present in a good-faith reading of the current text.

Per the sources collected, I would be interested in additional body text regarding adoption, use, and understanding of queer outside the anglosphere. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Helpful context, @RoxySaunders. I would also appreciate more coverage of queer in the Global South and, to that end, did add a little bit about Malaysian and Indonesian queer movements. I may return to some of those links I found earlier at some point, but it may take me a while, so I'm happy for others to get stuck in sooner. Lewisguile (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think @Bluerasberry is reading this article in a biased way. The reality of the Q-slur is that adoption/acceptance very much varies with the country, as well as regions within it. You might live in a place that throws “q***r” around like it’s the word “the”, but much of the rest of us live in a place where homophobes and transphobes call us “q***r” to demean us.

---

Preemptive rebuttal: Reclamation is a personal choice. If you try to force someone else to reclaim a slur, you join in on the bigotry against them. Reclamation doesn’t “dull the knife”; it gives more knives to people you thought were one of you. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is a discussion of WP policy. If you can back up your statement with RSes in such a way as to show that's the consensus of experts, then it may be relevant. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. Lewisguile (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Initial discussion

Queer Nation is a relatively obscure organization whose own Wiki page is flagged for having no citations whatsoever, but is cited in this article's intro. I'm removing it from the intro, since the article talks about it in greater detail below. Since the word itself is so controversial, I've added to the intro the current state of things from prominent, respected, objective sources that acknowledge the controversy: AP styleguide, GLAAD's position, PFLAG's position.

I also removed "assimilationist" language. That's a loaded weasel word that ascribes certain motivations and/or opinions to an entire category of people simply because of a word choice. Heliostellar (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Having seen that this was reverted, I thought I'd offer my thoughts. I think the word is justified by RS, but it's always helpful to avoid claims of bias. So, how about this tweaked version?

"as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to assimilation."

This way, we're not labelling a group or subgroup as "assimilationist" and thus there can be no claim of judgement towards any particular people themselves. Instead, we're saying this one political stance (provocation) was an alternative to another political stance (assimilation).

Thoughts? Lewisguile (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Both the Queer Nation and Queers Read This articles have several good reliable sources that would be helpful to incorportate here and might help further refine the wording in a way that would address Heliostar's concerns. I will try to get to that at some point.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Great. I've made that change now. Thanks for offering to look at those other pages for more sources! Lewisguile (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Queer is not an umbrella term and numerous style guides agree that it should never be used without the individual's consent or unless they self-identify that way. Heliostellar (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Queer Nation and it's singular, anonymous publication from 1990 are not acceptable citations of the current use of "queer" as compared to GLAAD or PFLAG's current online style guides. Heliostellar (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Queer is an umbrella term and it's well referenced as such. This page documents that some people dislike its adoption as an umbrella term, as well as the history of the term. There is no reason to change the wording from the current way which already mentions the objections in several places DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are awfully confident about speaking on behalf of a community without citations.

From GLAAD's style guide (https://glaad.org/reference/terms):

Queer

An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman). Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel do not apply to them. Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBTQ people to describe themselves. However, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community, so use caution when using it outside of describing the way someone self-identifies or in a direct quote. When Q is seen at the end of LGBT, it typically means queer. In a setting for support, particularly for youth, it may mean questioning. Ask people how they describe themselves before labeling their sexual orientation. (emphasis added)

The point of the story is that use of "queer" amongst polite company should be used in I-statements only and NOT collectively. Heliostellar (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire line about Queer Nation should be removed entirely from the first paragraph. It's an obscure organization with no citations that only briefly existed. Also, citing to a book literally titled "That's Revolting! Queer Strategies For Resisting Assimilation" inherently proffers a POV and has no business in an encyclopedic article--let alone the intro paragraph. Heliostellar (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I oppose Helio's changes. The introduced sentence does not reflect the balance of sources, and the better source needed tag is erroneous. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it erroneous? The link is dead... and it's inherently an opinion held by Queer Nation--an obscure and defunct entity: " Willful participation in U.S. imperialism is crucial to the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power." That's a whole political manifesto that doesn't belong here. Maybe you should put that content on their own page. Heliostellar (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right about this one, and I do think we need a better source. I was responding mainly to the reason you included in the tag. I was mainly objecting to the reason parameter in the tag: "Ascribing one intention on behalf of all those who do not identify as queer is inherently POV and a weasel word." This does not ascribe an intention to all those who identify as queer, and since it's directly attributed, it's not weaselly. If there aren't better sources talking about Queer Nation's effect on usage of the word, we should remove it from the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there are a fair number of reliable sources available that discuss Queers Read This as a seminal moment in reclamation of the word. Queers Read This#Identity and the term queer has several. I agree that this article's sourcing needs to be improved on that point.--Trystan (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Your concept of "reclamation" is problematic for the following reasons:

1. We are editing the introductory paragraph. We should not be introducing controversial "reclamation" POVs here, but we should acknowledge that the word is highly controversial.
2. What you suggest is actually borderline advocacy in changing the public perception of the word. You clearly want the word to mean something specific, since you are implying a necessary evolution or "reclamation" narrative. This article should not be pushing narratives, and mainstream sources acknowledge the word only as a personal self-identifier.
3. An obscure pamphlet from 1990 should never be referenced in an introductory paragraph on an article about a general topic. We have far more prominent and recent examples of published material to reference.

Heliostellar (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster link already in the article directly contradicts the casual use of the term as an "umbrella term"

Usage of Queer

While the noun queer is used as a neutral or positive self-descriptor, it has a long history of pejorative use and is likely to be considered offensive when used by someone who does not identify as queer.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer Heliostellar (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sense 2b contradicts you, I'm afraid. But I think I see the issue at hand.

An "umbrella term" is one that covers a broad range of things. In this case, "queer" can mean the same as LGBT+. It doesn't mean "a generic term you can use to describe everyone". Your opposition seems to be towards the latter — i.e., that you don't think it should be used to describe all LGBT+ people, and I'm with you on that. But it is still an umbrella term, so it's right to leave that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisguile (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Am I understanding your opposition correctly? Lewisguile (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It is not commonly agreed that it is a neutral "umbrella term." I'm fine with editing it to call it a "highly controversial umbrella term" (since we are supposed to include all majority and minority views) but that edit has been reversed without sourcing a number of times. Heliostellar (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't love all the tags, but it's clear we have some work to do in the lead and body to better describe the 1980s change in use of the term. Until we have that worked out, I'd like to change the end of the first paragraph to just "Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists began to reclaim the word as one of neutral or positive self-description."

On the other hand, in starting to look at stronger sources, the part about "umbrella term" is seeming stronger than ever. I think we should remove the dubious and OR tags on the first sentence per WP:WTRMT#3, namely that they "did not belong when placed". I would like to see us come to consensus on this relatively soon, since this gets a few thousand views per day. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on removal of the tags, this is clearly well sourced and supported by the reading of reputable sources. Raladic (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - This article already does a lot to mention the criticism of the term, no reason to obfuscate the definition when its usage is so well documented DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there's been some confusion of umbrella term v contentious endonym. Whether we *should* call all LGBT+ people "queer" is a different matter to whether the term *can* refer to all LGBT+ people. Clearly the former is subjective and the answer will vary based on individual preference, whereas the latter is not only objectively true but also commonly understood. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This entire chain is basically original research and just your personal opinions. I have cited:

1. Merriam-Webster dictionary that cautions its use as an umbrella term.
2. PFLAG suggests using only as a self-identifier--and not collectively.
3. The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists only recommends LGTBQ+ to avoid mislabeling someone.

There was no 1980s change in the use of the term, except maybe in your personal opinion--which is not encyclopedic. Heliostellar (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've said, "don't use this to refer to people without their consent" (what those sources all say) is not the same as "this term doesn't refer to a broad range of people" (which they don't). There are lots of terms that may be offensive when applied to people without their consent, but that doesn't stop the meaning of the word actually being capable of referring to broad groups of people.

An umbrella term doesn't have to be positive or neutral. It can be offensive or negative and still be an umbrella term. Lewisguile (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Collins Dictionary:

Umbrella term

Term used to cover a broad number of functions or items that all fall under a single common category.

That's it. Nothing there says it has to be agreeable to the subjects being named, or that it can't be offensive, or even that the term has to be appropriate. It just has to be used to cover a broad number of things as a single category. Quite clearly, "queer" is used in that way, even if some people don't like it.

Another way to resolve this dispute would be to ask for reliable sources with due weight who say that it isn't an umbrella term (not that it shouldn't be one, which is a different matter). Lewisguile (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Another way to resolve this dispute would be to ask for reliable sources with due weight who say that it isn't an umbrella term

Nice try. Burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, and you can't prove a negative.

Notwithstanding, I've pointed out numerous more widely circulated sources that caution that the word is not an umbrella term, and only a personal identifier.

Redefining as a well-known slur as a benign categorical term is inherently POV and advocacy. Heliostellar (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Reposting my reply to DeputyBeagle below:

I think it's helpful to look to Wikipedia's own standards as to what is NPOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view):

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;

• The position that queer is not an umbrella term is easy to substantiate with--let's see--the dictionary, PFLAG (a non-defunct organization), GLAAD (also not defunct); and the Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists. In fact that users have to post to the talk page to openly solicit for sources that support the dubious "reclamation" narrative proves that it is in fact not a majoritarian view.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• Again, use of broken links, obscure publications by defunct advocacy groups, etc. are not prominent adherents that deserve the same treatment as the references I've provided.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

• This is where I think most of this article already is.

Heliostellar (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware that you're now in breach of the three revert rule (WP:3RR) and this can be interpreted as edit warring. Please stop making reversions to the page to get the text that you want on there.

As for the evidence you've already provided, it disagrees with your assertion, which is why I maintain that you don't understand what an umbrella term is.

Merriam-Webster, on usage of queer as an adjective (as in "queer people" or "the queer community"):

"But the adjective today is commonly used as a positive or neutral self-descriptor, and also has wide use as a neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer

This is a WP:RS stating clearly that this a common term used to describe "a large and varied group of people". Ergo, it's an umbrella term.

When describing the term's ability to be offensive, it says:

"Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context."

The use of "some people" has to be contrasted with "widely used". Clearly, the plain-sense meaning of this is that a minority continues to find it offensive.

Referring to the section you quoted above, this specifically refers to the noun form (i.e., calling someone "a queer", not describing someone as being queer):

"While the noun queer is used as a neutral or positive self-descriptor, it has a long history of pejorative use and is likely to be considered offensive when used by someone who does not identify as queer."

The bolded parts are important. It's offensive to call someone "a queer" if you're not queer yourself. That's unsurprising and doesn't contradict the earlier guidance, which is for the adjectival form. Again, that's different to describing a group of people as queer (adjective).

I would be happy to describe queer as a "neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people" (citing Merriam-Webster, of course) instead of an "umbrella term", but that will essentially be mean the same thing to a reader, and I'm not sure it would resolve your complaints. Lewisguile (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"Negro" is a mixed use word/slur and the article there deals with it appropriately:

"The term can be viewed as offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral, largely depending on the region or country where it is used, as well as the time period and context in which it is applied." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro Heliostellar (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the same view as Lewisguile. Helio's evidence tends to point in the opposite direction as their arguments. We have many sources that describe queer as a neutral umbrella term, note its past pejorative usage, and identify that there are some that are still opposed to its use. That's roughly how our lead handles it right now. Given the rough consensus here against the tags, I'm thinking to give it another day or so and then remove them. Helio, unless you think you're going to change our minds, or are optimistic about another talk page watcher chiming in, you should consider seeking out some form of dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The concern raised by the tags has been thoroughly discussed, and there seems to me to be a clear consensus that they are not warranted.--Trystan (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, also. Usage as an umbrella term is well documented and the continued insertion of tags could be seen as vandalism or edit warring (though I have alerted @Heliostellar to WP:3RR now, so I think we're all on the same page and that hopefully shouldn't happen going forward).

As an olive branch, I have also drafted something that could — with consensus — be appended to the end of the first paragraph in the lede. Though the opening is accurate and well sourced, I'd rather be overly comprehensive to reach a compromise than risk protracted debate and edit warring. So:

"Though its use as an adjective is generally considered neutral or positive today (especially when used to self-identify), its use as a noun may still be considered offensive (especially when used by people who are not LGBT themselves)." [Ref to Merriam Webster, current source 1]

This puts the two distinct usages of the word upfront, and draws a distinction between "queer people" and "queers" right there at the start. Without a separate article on the usage of “queer” as a slur, this seems balanced to me (since people will come here looking for that sense of the word too).

I did consider a "Usage" section distinct from the current "Origins and early use" section (which we could rename "Origins" or "Etymology") to go over the differences between the two, but thought this sentence would be simpler and comes earlier on (so it gets higher billing, as it were). This is all covered elsewhere in the article, but I do think the opening is the most vital part of the article and so it is sometimes worth being explicit upfront.

I'd still be up for drafting a "Usage" section, too, to summarise its use in language in a more technical sense, if people would prefer that. (Language is my jam!)

E.g. (needs polishing, but this is to show the rough format):

Usage

Queer can be used as both an adjective and a noun. The adjective form (e.g., “queer people”, “a queer person”, "queer theory") is used widely in the media and academia as a group descriptor, usually equivalent to LGBT and similar terms.[1] It may also be used more widely to refer to any nontraditional sexual and gender identities, although this usage is more contentious.[2] Usage as a noun (e.g., calling someone "a queer" or a group of people "queers") is less acceptable, and may be considered offensive if the person using it is not themselves queer or if they are using it to describe another person without their permission.[1][3][4] The term is always offensive when intended as a slur. [5][6][7]"

1: Merriam-Webster

2: Gabriel Kassel

3: http://bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/sexual-orientation/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20'queer'%20can,can%20be%20acceptable%20if%20relevant

4: https://glaad.org/reference/terms

5: https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7

6: https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology/

7: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101512

This article is clearly important to a lot of people, as shown by the responses on the talk page and the high daily traffic, so it's worth getting it right. I hope we can draw a line under this soon. Lewisguile (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Heliostellar I didn't tag you properly, but wanted you to see this so you can see my suggestion here. Let's see what the consensus is. Lewisguile (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a step in the right direction if we're gonna offer a compromise and I'm generally in favour - but I do think making the distinction between noun and adjective in regards to its status as a perjorative is iffy. The dictionary claims the noun is also used as neutral or positive, even if it's used in a disparaging way more often than the adjective.

Also, I'd be opposed to using the style guides as a reference. Like I mentioned somewhere else in the thread, they're prescriptive - describing how you should use terms rather than how people do use them. If we want to use them as sources, we should probably rejig the sentence to explicitly mention that this is what style guides suggest rather than objective reality DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pleased this is useful. How about this as a slight rejig of the single-sentence summary:

"Though its use as an adjective or a noun is generally considered neutral or positive today (especially when used to self-identify), its use as a noun may still be considered offensive when used by people who are not LGBT themselves or when used to describe individuals without their permission."

For the longer version:

"Queer can be used as both an adjective and a noun. The adjective form (e.g., “queer people”, “a queer person”) is used widely in the media and academia as a group descriptor, usually equivalent to LGBT and similar terms.[1] It may also be used more widely to refer to non-normative sexual and gender identities, although this usage is more contentious.[2] Usage as a noun (e.g., calling someone "a queer" or a group of people "queers") may be neutral, positive or offensive depending on context. When used in-group or as a term of self-identity, it is typically considered positive or neutral. The term may be considered offensive if it is used as a slur, or if the person using it is not themselves queer.[1][3] Media style guides and LGBT advocacy groups argue the term may be considered offensive in any context, due to its historical use as a pejorative, and recommend permission should be sought when describing someone else as queer.[4][5][6]

According to sociologist Meredith G.F. Worthen, the term is becoming more common as a self-identifier: between 5–20% of all non-heterosexuals identify as queer, while 21–36% of those who identify as trans, non-binary or gender nonconforming also identify as queer.[3] In contrast, Worthen notes that queer is still used as a slur by one in four people as of 2023.[3]”

Refs:

1: Merriam-Webster

2: Gabriel Kassel

3: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101512

4: http://bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/sexual-orientation/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20'queer'%20can,can%20be%20acceptable%20if%20relevant

5: https://glaad.org/reference/terms

6: https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7

7: https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology

Note that the style guides would then only be used as refs for the part specifically referring to their viewpoint. Everything else is covered by the first three sources. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Drop "should" in "recommend permission should be sought". That was left in as a versioning error. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to find a compromise, but I think this would move the article in the wrong direction and ultimately lead to more problems down the road. Per WP:NOTDICT, articles should not encompass all meanings of a term, but focus on one concept. I think the pejorative use of queer is a fundamentally distinct concept to queer identities. It's related, and that relation is already quite thoroughly covered in the article. In other words, queer (slang) would be a different article on a different subject.

The proposed usage section and corresponding addition to the lead would blur those two subjects together. Given the topic of this article, increasing the emphasis on just how many people don't like it would not be an improvement. It also reads as very proscriptive, rather than descriptive, which is also not a road we should start down. When writing about controversial topics, which includes just about every LGBTQ+ topic, articles should strive to dispassionately convey the facts, and avoid undue emphasis on negative viewpoints, along the lines of WP:CRITICISM.

In reliable sources, discussion of queer identities hugely overwhelms discussion of the pejorative use. (Usage of queer has increased in sources about 20-fold since 1990, and that's almost certainly not due to any increase in its use as a pejorative.) The article should reflect that. Bringing the pejorative more into the scope of the article and giving it more and more emphasis would not be in line with NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This article only mentions criticism in 1 sentence in the intro, and a tiny subsection called “Criticism” JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ETA: I'm not sure my browser is properly saving my replies, as they keep getting mangled. Apologies if this shows up twice or the formatting is shot:

Thank you, Trystan. Perhaps I overdid it with the numbers in that last version, and should just take those stats out!

I mostly agree with you, as it happens, though I do think there's scope for discussion of etymology and language usage when we're talking about a specific word or term (and how it's used) as a subject. So much of the content of this article is already about meaning and use that it wouldn't really be out of place. But your concern is noted. (Maybe I could also drop the bit about adjectives/nouns and focus on “most people find it neutral or positive; a few still find it offensive”.)

Regardless, my thinking wasn't to make the article about both uses, per se, but to properly distinguish one usage from the other to better set expectations. I'm not sure the current article does that, and so people may have an expectation that it will cover both subjects when it doesn’t. That then leads to people with otherwise good intentions making bad or impassioned edits because they think the article is pushing a POV or erasing their own experiences.

If there are regular debates about whether or not it's a slur, it will eat up a lot of time and energy that could be spent doing other things. Multiple editors have had to get involved over the past few days, and I'm sure we've all got better things to do as the weekend approaches. It did occur to me that a new article could be started to cover usage of the word as a slur, but I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. If there were a second article, I suppose we could just add a disambiguation tag to direct people to "Queer (slur)" at the top, and then we wouldn't need to modify the lede at all. I'd certainly be happy with that.

However, I am also happy with the article the way it is, so you'll get no insistence from me that we have to include this wording or spin off a new article about the use of queer as a slur. I just thought it worth making the effort to reach a compromise, especially since I sympathise with those who may have also suffered at the hands of those who've misused the term (and it's better if we can get to a version of the article with which we all agree).

I'm being overly comprehensive again, so apologies for yet another essay. Lewisguile (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

One other consideration: if there were to be a "Queer (slur)" article, would it result in this page getting moved to a more specific title such as "Queer (identity)"? That's one risk of separating the terminology. Lewisguile (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the current structure of the article has been remarkably stable for many years, and that is due to it sticking closely to policies like NOT and NPOV. For topics that evoke strong real-world feelings in some readers, a certain level of perennial reiterating the application of those policies is inevitable. In the current instance, one editor, who is almost a WP:SPA, raised concerns, and several other editors reviewed those concerns and by and large disagreed. That's par for the course, though happily has resulted in very productive work on improving sourcing.

That some people find the word offensive is already covered in the lead. I don't think increased emphasis would comply with NPOV, nor is Helio likely to be satisfied until that is the primary topic of the article.

If queer (slang) were created, it would need to be determined whether this meaning or that one is the primary topic for the term, and so properly located at the undisambiguated name. I think it is this one by an order of magnitude, but that would be hashed out in a requested move of this page.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

All good points, well made. The suggestions are here for others to chime in anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources about early reclamation of the term

Anyone should feel free to add to the list:

1. Sycamore, Mattilda Bernstein (2008). That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation (illustrated, revised ed.). Counterpoint Press. p. 1. ISBN 9781593761950. Retrieved July 17, 2024 – via Open Library. Willful participation in U.S. imperialism is crucial to the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power
   • This what we're currently leaning on for much of the body and lead content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Barker, Meg-John (2016). "Reclaiming "Queer"". Queer: a graphic history. ISBN 9781785780721. In the 1980s, people in LGBT communities began to reclaim the word "queer" as either a neutral word to describe themselves, or as a positive form of self-identity. One early example was the activist group Queer Nation who circulated a "Queers Read This" flyer at the 1990 New York Pride march. Goes on to mention mainstreaming of the term, use as an umbrella term, and continued opposition to the term from older people and some queer activists who want the term to be used for those who are not just LGBTQ+, but outside of the communities mainstream.
   • Don't let the illustration fool you, this is a serious book by a serious scholar, and it has WP:USEBYOTHERS creds, as it's cited in source #3. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Kolker, Zoe M.; Taylor, Philip C.; Galupo, M. Paz (October 2020). "'As a Sort of Blanket Term': Qualitative Analysis of Queer Sexual Identity Marking". Sexuality & Culture. 24 (5): 1337–1357. doi:10.1007/s12119-019-09686-4. In the 1980s the LGBTQ community reclaimed the word as an identity label in order to break boundaries of binary ideas of sexuality and gender/sex. Queer has become more commonplace in modern media and television as well as being more readily adopted by LGBTQ organizations. Available via WP:TWL. Supports "umbrella term" and contrasts "queer" with assimilationism.
4. Hanhardt, Christina B. "Queer History Article". Organization of American Historians. Retrieved July 18, 2024. ... the term's reemergence in the 1990s, spurred both by a political formation of militant and creative LGBT activists and by a new cadre of academic scholars. The members of Queer Nation, founded in New York City in 1990, and the producers and readers of what was labeled as "queer theory" by the next year, were by no means the first to affirmatively or wryly reclaim queer, but they set the word into a new play that changed the language and the methods of both social movements and academic scholarship for years to come.
5. Bernstein, Mary (2002). "Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement" (PDF). Social Science History. 26 (3): 531–581. doi:10.1017/S0145553200013080. ... Queer Nation, formed in 1990 ... Queer nationals also reappropriated the term queer to include those lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people and anyone else who challenged the dominant sex/gender system. "Queer" was not a demarcation of one's sexual orientation but a statement against the normal. ACT UP and Queer Nation transformed discourse about sexual orientation, and queer theory remains a prominent strand of thought. Radical and progressive activists cheered the renewed emphasis on culture that moved beyond formal legal equality, while other lesbian and gay activists cringed as radicals appeared to threaten their "virtually normal" status

Continued discussion

Heliostellar response

According to Reliable Sources:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" (emphasis added).

You seem to have a number of fringe, minority views thoroughly represented in the intro paragraph. However, the dictionary definition footnote doesn't even agree with your proposition that "queer" is an umbrella term.

1. From Merriam-Webster (a/k/a fn 1):

"The adjective queer is now most frequently applied with its meanings relating to sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as outlined at sense 2 above. When these meanings were developing in the early 20th century, they were strongly pejorative, echoing the negative connotations of the word's older meanings, which included "weird," "suspicious," and "unwell." But the adjective today is commonly used as a positive or neutral self-descriptor, and also has wide use as a neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people.

The term is also prominent as a neutral term in academic contexts that deal with gender and sexuality. Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

While these fringe books might sockpuppet your personal opinion, I am unclear how they supersede what dictionaries and other actual, neutral reference guides say on the subject.

1. From Stylebook on LGBTQ+ Terminology that LGBTQ+ is the only acceptable "umbrella term":

"LGBTQ+

Acceptable in all references for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, and other sexual and gender minorities.

It may be tempting for journalists to refer to the LGBTQ+ community. In reality, it is a broad and sometimes loosely bound group of communities comprising people from all races, religions, cultures and walks of life. Referring to LGBTQ+ people is usually more accurate than defining it as one community.

There is not universal agreement on a name. LGBT leaves out many people who identity in ways that may be similar to but not the same as lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

Some alternatives exist but may be less inclusive, cumbersome or unfamiliar to general audiences and could require explanation. LGBTQ includes people who identify as queer or who are questioning their sexual orientation; LGBTQIA includes intersex, asexual and agender people; LGBTQIA2S+ specifically includes two-spirits and other sexual and gender minorities.

Writers and organizations should decide for themselves, based on their audience and intent, whether more or less specificity is needed."

https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology/

1. From PFLAG:

Queer

A term used by some LGBTQ+ people to describe themselves and/or their community. Reclaimed from its earlier negative use--and valued by some for its defiance--the term is also considered by some to be inclusive of the entire community and by others who find it to be an appropriate term to describe their more fluid identities. Traditionally a negative or pejorative term for people who are LGBTQ+, some people within the community dislike the term. Due to its varying meanings, use this word only when self-identifying or quoting an individual who self-identifies as queer (i.e., “My cousin identifies as queer” or “My cousin is a queer person”).

https://pflag.org/glossary/#queer Heliostellar (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOT is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article isn't going to cover all possible meanings of the word. The subject if this article is specifically on queer as a reclaimed identity. Other uses are discussed to provide context, but aren't really part of that subject per se.

Wikipedia is also not a style guide. The purpose of an article is to factually inform, not judge or provide usage guidance. The focus is therefore appropriately on describing the context in which queer was reclaimed and the evolution of it as an identity since then. Every single article on an LGBTQ+ topic could tie itself in knots emphasizing how many people disapprove of the subject being discussed, and while that sort of content can certainly be included in an appropriate way, it shouldn't get in the way of conveying the relevant history.--Trystan (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that mainstream sources do not agree with this plain statement regardless of the fact that you want them to: "Queer is an umbrella term"

If Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a style guide, it is also not a publishing platform for fringe books.

You have plenty of fringe sources that you want to cite to, but that is not in keeping with:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"

A naive person who looks up this article would think it is ok to call anyone LGBT "queer." That is not an accurate portrayal of the topic--even under this POV "reclamation" narrative. Heliostellar (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You're really circling around the point @Lewisguile made earlier. WP is not here to say whether the term *should* be an umbrella term, just that it *is*, and that's objectively true.

Your style guides you point out are prescriptive. They say how they think it should be, not how it is. That's what they're for, but it means they're not suitable for this application

The whole article, including the lede addresses the history and criticism of the term, but this intro should stay how it is DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we have an issue of whitewashing here. Edits to this article seem to want to redefine the term from being a well-known slur (a majoritarian position) to something solely benign (in the name of some kind of false neutrality), which is not the job of Wikipedia. Having the intro about a well-known slur not call it such automatically makes this article take on a "revisionist/reclamationist" POV.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

"Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."

See also the "due weight" rule below that I think this article violates by giving so much deference to the "revisionist/reclamationist" POV.

Heliostellar (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to look to Wikipedia's own standards as to what is NPOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view):

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;

• The fact that the talk page has to openly solicit for sources that support the "reclamation" narrative proves that it is not in fact majoritarian.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• Again, use of broken links, obscure publications by defunct advocacy groups, etc. are not prominent adherents that deserve the same treatment as the references I've provided.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

• This is where I think most of this article already is.

Heliostellar (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, from your own WP:NOT source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content):

"Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."

Appropriate weight:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight Heliostellar (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see my quotes from the Merriam-Webster definition you linked to upthread. According to that, it's the minority view that queer (when used as a noun) is offensive. Lewisguile (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean, the definition with this disclaimer? "sometimes disparaging + offensive; see usage paragraph below"

It specifically cautions against it's use as an umbrella term. I have no problem with it being re-worded to stop implying that it is commonly accepted as an "umbrella term" when almost all of the popular sources caution against that specific usage.

You can also look at other articles for borderline slur words. They have no problem calling the word a slur in the intro to their respective articles. Specifically, the word "negro" which actually does have widespread legitimate use as a non-slur--unlike queer--plainly refers to it as a slur in the intro. Heliostellar (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

To argue queer doesn't have use as anything other than a slur is frankly ludicrous.

The word has objectively been reclaimed. Whether you think it should is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is it has.

This whole article is about the history of the word and its reclamation. You seem more and more to be engaging in WP:POVPUSHING here DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Heliostellar This is becoming disruptive now. We are engaging in good faith and you are only selectively engaging with what we say. The very quote you give says it is only "sometimes" offensive and disparaging. That makes its use as a slur the less common usage by default and so doesn't justify the changes you want. "Usually", "mostly" or even "often" all mean "more than sometimes". This is basic stuff.

I am about to make a longer post under Trystan's comment with a suggestion for a compromise, but please know we are all trying our best to be fair with you here, so we deserve the same courtesy in return. You haven't yet been reported for edit warring, even though WP:3RR clearly states that you can be reported for four or more reversions within a 24 hours (with leeway to report you if you make an edit slightly outside this time), and I count at least 7 edits where you either re-insert a tag or template or revert to an earlier version of the page which already had them within the span of 17–18 July. We are trying to assume good faith on your part here, because this is clearly an important topic, so let's not escalate this or make it any more difficult than it has to be. Lewisguile (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The current introductory paragraph reads as if q***r is only an umbrella term that only used to be a slur, and criticism of it is a fringe position, when in fact, multiple dictionaries, and style guides written by LGBT organizations, caution that it’s still pejorative. I agree with Heliostellar’s revision from “an umbrella term” to “a word with a mixed history as a slur [...] and an umbrella term”. @DeputyBeagle seems to be the one doing the [[1]] here and arguing that "q***r" is NO LONGER a slur. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead does not state that queer no longer has any pejorative use, or that its critics are fringe. The focus is on queer as a reclaimed identity descriptor because that is the subject of the article, and the article in turn broadly reflects and summarizes what reliable sources have to say on that subject (accepting always that there is room for improvement). The proposed change takes two fundamentally distinct topics (queer identities and queer as a pejorative) and tries to combine them into a single article, which isn't in line with the WP:NOTDICT policy.--Trystan (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And the first paragraph says: "queer came to be used pejoratively against LGBT people in the late 19th century. From the late 1980s, queer activists began to reclaim the word as a neutral or positive self-description."

We openly say it was used as a pejorative and that it "began" to be reclaimed. I think that's balanced. Lewisguile (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)