Talk:Straight pride/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What Straight Pride is not

I removd the following text: " .... The concept of gay pride originates as a movement which seeks to challenge the negative images of homosexuals to be openly identified with a culturally stigmatized group; as such, it creates a discomfort that leads others to criticize it and declare that heterosexuals "don't talk about straight pride",nor would "bang together and have a heterosexual pride", i.e. they do not generally celebrate "Straight Pride" for its own sake. ... " because this text stresses what Straight Pride is not, as opposed to what it is and how it is defined. The article text is clearer without the above. In addition, the third reference left me frankly puzzled - did the cite reference a dialogue between two fictional characters? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It also claims there's a straight pride movement against the available evidence. Thanks Jenova20 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this removal of reliable sources. Given that we have reliable sources covering what straight pride is not, including those direct references is important per NPOV (covering all significant points of view). The Howard P. Kainz text is a philosophical dialog deliberately made as imitation of Plato's - I fail to see how the literary device chosen by the author makes the source less reliable. Diego (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. also, given that one of the claims against notability is that there weren't sources discussing the topic in detail, I don't think it's a good idea removing those sources that cover the topic as a whole. Diego (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. This section seems to deal pretty exclusively with what Gay Pride is as opposed to what Straight Pride is. I think that it's reasonable - necessary, even - to allude to Gay Pride, but the text seems to me to be a thinly-veiled suggestion that Sraight Pride doesn't exist, as opposed to explanation regarding the background of Straight PRide rallies and incidents. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

With regards Plato's dialogues, and the quote, such turgid prose seems misplaced in what ought to be a fairly brief article on a marginally notable topic. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability at Wikipedia is established by the amount of content we can write from reliable sources. If we include more sources, the subject is more notable. This objection sounds more "i dont like it" than policy-based; it doesn't look reasonable to use the Notability guideline as a reason to exclude reliable sources. Diego (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

" .... "straight pride" is well-sourced as "something heterosexual wouldn't do" .... I remind you that the determination of the RfD was "no consensus". I promise - pinky promise - to assume good faith, but I do sincerely ask that you leave aside any lingering bias you may harbor that this topic doesn't exist and that this article shouldn't exist. Fair? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I was on the camp that it exists. I have to ask you not to invent about my motivation. I also think that some sources are saying that it doesn't exist as an organized movement to praise the excellences of heterosexuality, which is exactly what the sources you removed are explaining, and that we should also mention. Removing that view is trying to exclude a significant point of view, something that is forbidden by the Neutrality pillar. Diego (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for any insult I offered, and which I have withdrawn. I do not consider Straight Pride to be a particularly organized movement. I think that it exists as a concept, often (maybe primarily) as a response to perceived pro-LGBT bias, and that it has been expressed in a concrete way over a period of several decades by various groups with various, typically non-violent, agendas. I think that the stated reasons for the 1991 UMass rally and for the Sao Paulo holiday should be the focus of defining Straight Pride, unless we find more clearly-stated or better-organized groups. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No insult intended, no offense taken. We should develop the article following what reliable sources have said about the term, not what editors at the misguided AfD discussion stated. "Straight pride" parades organized as a reaction to Gay Pride is one important meaning of the term, but not the only one. The sources from Michele Eliason, the dialogs and many others make clear that there's a second way in which the term is used (almost anything in Google Books or Scholar with the words "Straight pride" in it are referring to this "negative meaning"; the parades are usually covered at newspapers). I think this is where the term originated, probably much before someone thought of actually arranging a parade using the name; but I can't find any sources confirming this relation so I won't add it to the article. It's enough to report both meanings of the term as related to gay pride, just like the avaiable references do. Diego (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To an extent, but just as we wouldn't want Republican party sources to dominate the defining of the Democrats, I think that we need to be cautious in using inflammatory statements from sources that have strong protective feelings regarding LGBT rights. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. But the philosopher's book I think is fairly neutral (deliberately so; the topic of the book is "philosical analysis of politically incorrect ideas"). You're right that we're missing some definitions from the people organizing the rallies - what are the justifications they give for starting the parades? Adding those reasons would provide the balance you're missing, better than removing the descriptions by LGBT friendly groups. Diego (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

I have the following problems with this paragraph: The concept of gay pride originates as a movement which seeks to challenge the negative images of homosexuals to be openly identified with a culturally stigmatized group Defines Gay Pride; doesn't help define Straight Pride unless one assumes that Straight Pride is explicitly anti-LGBT, a definition that references do not bear out.; as such, it creates a discomfort that leads others to criticize it This seems to be WP:OR to me. The indefinite pronouns here make the sentence hard for me to interpret. and declare that heterosexuals "don't talk about straight pride", don't have "straight pride rallies", nor would "bang together and have a heterosexual pride", i.e. they do not generally celebrate "Straight Pride" for its own sake.But isn't this the whole point of the Sao Paulo holiday? "Heterosexual pride" thus exists as a response to societal acceptance of LGBT visibility, which originated in campuses in the 1990's as a backlash tactic.The term "backlash tactic" suggests that a strategy exists. The almost complete lack of formal organization related to Staright Pride makes that term inappropriate.

Accordingly, I suggested the following prose: " ... Straight Pride exists as a response to societal acceptance of LGBT visibility, and originated on campuses in the 1990's ... " TreacherousWays (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate but related meanings for straight pride; one is the parade reported at newspapers, for which your introduction is fine; the other is the term used by books as an argument to justify why gay pride is not a good idea (according some points of view). Maybe they shoulnd't be treated in the same paragraph? Having both definitions clearly separated should help distinguish what is a scholarly argument and what is just grassroots backlash. Diego (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the new subsections, do they make clear how the meanings are separate? (About the term "backlash tactit", those are the words used by the reliable sourced - the sentence just paraphrases them). Diego (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. and the subsection "Gay Pride argument ad-absurdum" could have a better title. Diego (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There are definitely multiple meanings / motivations. No need to create an "either /or" situaiotn, we should cover both. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the straight-pride-as-an-argument section with the most common counter-argument used as a reply. It's sourced by the heavily used papers by Michele Eliason; it could benefit from other sources, I'm sure this argument has been described elsewhere - it's really common as the first reply to the "nobody in their right mind would make a straight pride, so why a gay pride?" argument. Diego (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is it "Straight Pride", "Straight pride" or "straight pride"? "Gay Pride", "Gay pride" or "gay pride"? The capitalizations are not used consistently in the article. What are the relevant guidelines in the MoS for this case? Diego (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. If an organization capitalizes its name, we are supposed to leave it in caps (or lower case, or however they do it). Section titles in WP run capital first word, the rest in lower case - so Gay pride and Straight pride in section headings. Because straight pride is (to my mind) not an organization, a good guideline may not exist. I would be tempted to use Straight Pride to differentiate. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

since it is not an actual movement or phenomena, simply a phrase, it is whatever the particular source decides to use for that particular event. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I got the impression that Diego is more concerned with consistency and readability within the article. I've been using quotation marks as well as capitalization; "gay pride" seems to be small letters. It's a semantics thing, I guess - I was at a straight pride rally, talking with my friend about Straight Pride when we bought a "Straight Pride" beer koozie. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

This article has been tagged with Category:Homophobia which I find appropriate but User:2600:1:F100:D88B:40EA:AF2F:9919:E146 has been removing this. While I think that the tag should be here, this does seem like something that should be a conversation. I would like to restore the tag for now, but I don't want to get into an edit war so I'll leave it be for now. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Tell me why you think it's appropriate? Could it just be that straight people want to be happy with who they are too? Or is anything with pride now required to be gay only?2600:1:F100:D88B:40EA:AF2F:9919:E146 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There are examples on the page of the KKK and White Aryan Resistance using Straight Pride as a rejection of homosexuality which is by definition homophobic. This would make the article appropriate for the category homophobia. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 23:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. As the article makes pretty clear, "straight pride" is a vehicle for denigrating those who fight for equal rights. The "homophobia" category is perfectly applicable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The opening sentence

"Straight Pride (or Heterosexual Pride) is an anti-gay slogan that arose in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has been used primarily by social conservative groups as a political stance and strategy." - That's a bit of a mess. "Straight pride" and "Heterosexual pride" are clearly not the same slogan; they may stand for the same thing, but that's different. We appear to be saying that the slogan "Heterosexual pride" arose in the late 1980s? Are we saying that "Straight pride" arose twice (late 1980s and early 1990s), or are we suggesting it stopped during the 1990s? And is a slogan a strategy? And if this article is actually about a slogan, can we get rid of the things like Yellowknife that did not use the slogan? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying that it is flatly "anti-gay" or even mostly anti-gay is not supported by the sources. They show that a significant and probably majority is reactionary to "gay pride" and gay activism type initiatives, which is very different than "anti-gay". North8000 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to tweak this. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, while I am no LGBT militant (or at least not an active or loud one), I must say that in the same Brazilian city that tried to have the Dia do orgulho hétero, a march of neo-Nazis appeared after a dinosaur politician dude from the time of the militar dictatorship that is to the far-right and quite proud of being white said that if he had a gay son, he would beat him up until he started to behave “like a man.” I don't know what kind of harm a person that is not inherently disgusted by the idea of homosexuality and people being open and natural about it would see in gay pride so that he/she can reaffirm his/her privilege with a good reason. Lguipontes (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's stick with sources and reliable ones at that. Opinions are emotional and divided, but we shouldn't fall pray to an appeal to emotion. It does not help an encyclopedic article to point out one person in Brazil and make a generalization for all other people everywhere. Text about gay pride should exist in this article only as far as there is a causative relationship. It is a fallacy, and an emotional one, to believe that only one group has a right to be proud of their dynamic. Awolnetdiva (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

2019

Isn't calling it "social conservative" a judgement? There may be other reasons why people gather under that slogan. It sounds derogatory to me.Tiki (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be able to theorize reasons why you think it might be used, but actual coverage of it shows otherwise. Putting it in the realm of anti-gay and thus socially conservative is well established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Factual error

The article states that, "The back of these t-shirts displayed "Leviticus 20:13", the verse stating that those who perform homosexual acts should be put to death." This content should be changed, as it is factually incorrect. The verse referred to does not state that "those who perform homosexual acts should be put to death". It refers to male homosexual acts only. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

NatGertler altered " stating that men who perform homosexual acts should be put to death " to " men who perform homosexual acts will be killed ". The change was not an improvement and I have reverted it. The verse is obviously concerned with stating what should be done to people who perform a particular act, not stating what will happen. Furthermore, "killed" is a general term for taking a person's life. We need to avoid using such general terms to describe very specific actions such as putting someone to death for violating a law or rule. The use of "killed" misses the point that according to the verse such killing is correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Flag

Who designed the straight pride flag and when? 2A02:908:373:6000:8497:2528:D41B:F2B9 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Which flag do you mean? If you mean the horizontally-striped black-and-white flag, then it's very probable that it came into existence to be the background to the "Straight Ally" flag. It's certainly conspicuously devoid of the symbolism that would be expected in a heterosexual flag actually designed by heterosexuals (pink and blue, Mars and Venus, etc), which gives rise to a very strong suspicion that it's a flag for straight people designed by gay people... AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

that's certainly one way to look at it, but probably not the truth. many protesters didnt print proper straight pride flags, and instead just sewn cheap black and white lines together. the straight ally flag was also no created by straight allies themself, but instead LGBTQ+. Dollardollardollar3 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a very good chance that protesters got their idea of a straight pride flag from Wikipedia (see xkcd cartoon "citogenesis") AND ALSO a very good chance that the horizontally-striped black-and-white flag was not devised by a heterosexual person to represent heterosexuals at all (but by non-heterosexuals to be the background of the "Straight Ally flag")... AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No one cares about your biased personal opinions about "super-straight"

If you bothered to read https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/how-super-straight-started-culture-war-tiktok/618498/ , then you would be aware that it was started by an individual who was tired of being told by transgender advocates that he was a hatemonger if he was not sexually attracted to transgenders (considering that the great majority of heterosexuals -- and therefore a majority of the population -- are not attracted to transgenders). The birth of super-straight involved a certain semi-subtle trolling component very common on social media, but it was NOT hatemongering or part of a harassment compaign. In fact, the shoe could be considered to be on the other foot to some degree, since "The longer social-media shamers condemn preferences that the overwhelming majority of people share, the more inevitable the pushback" (as it says in the linked article). AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL.

I am frankly uninterested in rehashing how we should describe this topic, since a) those conversations were held in quite a lot of detail back around the time this was a trend and the matter seems largely settled, and b) the topic is not even notable enough for a standalone article. I see that Super Dromaeosaurus has adjusted the descriptor and while I disagree with their characterization of it in the edit summary, I have no complaints about the descriptor as it stands now if you are also alright with it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the current tag is unobjectionable. Thanks to the other user... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I don't follow or edit about 99% of the gender identity articles, so I have no idea what was decided there, but I've been following and editing the LGBT symbols article since 2006, as you can see at Talk:LGBT symbols/Archive 1. More about the problematic flag later... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Heterosexual_flag_(black-white_stripes).svg

Unfortunately, this is a highly-problematic entity as a flag for straight people that was designed by gay people, and it should not be included on this article without specific evidence that it's been used in a straight pride context. AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That set of stripes does serve as the field of the flag in the New Brunswick incident, although it did have the intertwined female and male symbols placed atop it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: The provided source describes it in terms of straight pride. Do you have sourcing for your claims, that it is a highly-problematic entity as a flag for straight people that was designed by gay people? GorillaWarfare (she/her  o  talk) 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a reasonable inference from the fact that it was derived from the gay rainbow flag by replacing the colored rainbow stripes with alternating black-and-white stripes (in a manner that would remind many of prison uniforms), and appears mainly on pride flag websites (as far as I can tell), where it's usually included as an afterthought at the end, after a whole series of alternative sexuality flags have been presented. And of course, it also appears as part of the "Straight Ally" flag. If actual heterosexuals were designing a heterosexual flag, then it's EXTREMELY unlikely that they would choose the rainbow gay flag as a starting point -- as you can see at commons:Category:Heterosexuality flags -- or would willingly embrace prison-uniform symbolism AnonMoos (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your "reasonable inference" is original research, it seems. GorillaWarfare (she/her  o  talk) 18:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- it's a set of red warning flags that the image should not be used on this article in the way that it was formerly used. If you restore the image in the exact same way that it was before I edited the article, then you will be the one going beyond the evidence, not me... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the caption because the source doesn't speak to the flag being the most commonly used, but it is sourced that this is a straight pride flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her  o  talk) 18:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It should be in the article section about the specific incident where a similar flag was used. It should NOT be at the top of the article, since that implies that it has a status which it does not actually have. AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The source describes it as a straight pride flag. Feel free to come up with contradictory sourcing if you have it, but your personal opinions on the flag and its origins are as of yet unsupported by sources, and should not be used to argue for changes to this article without any sourcing to support them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the alleged "source" for the first time a few minutes ago, and it's exactly the kind of thing that I described in my message of "17:57, 28 August 2021" above -- a pride flags listing with the black-and-white striped flag tacked on at the end as an afterthought. I'm not sure why that site supposedly has great authority; I think that my conclusion that it's a flag for straight people devised by gay people is quite a bit more plausible than its interpretation that the flag in question is an evil mockery of the gay rainbow flag -- something which is rather incompatible with its inclusion in the Straight Ally flag from the beginning. I think you need to find a better source than yet another pride flags listing website, which has no special distinctiveness or authority with respect to all the other pride flags listing websites which are out there... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a perfectly sufficient source for the claim that this is a straight pride flag. Your claims, however, are still unsourced. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That same sort of logic would lead to the assumption that the Blue Lives Matter slogan was made by Black people... --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. The visual symbolisms involved are quite a bit more specific than a vague generalized "snowclone" slogan template. AnonMoos (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's six stripes. They literally just changed the color -- you know, like what changing "Black" to "Blue" is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am proud to be a straight, so does that make me homophobic?

I think you should change the "See also" section a bit. Not all people who are proud to be straight are homophobes. This article you have edited seems to be attacking us straights. And while you're at it, maybe link "Pride" or "LGBT pride" and/or "LBGT" because we are also a sexuality. Anti-SJW (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'see also' section doesn't mention homophobia, it mentions "Heterophobia", which is a redirect to Homophobia#Heterophobia. This is because it is a related topic which readers might reasonably find informative/interesting.

The overwhelming majority of societies on Earth treats heterosexuality as normal and acceptable, but the same cannot be said for other sexualities. As far as I know, no government imprisons, tortures, chemically castrates, or just flat-out executes people just for being straight, so being proud of being straight doesn't have the same meaning. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I always turn out at these straight pride parades to support you guys. Not that I'm straight, lord no!, but I just think EVERYONE should be able to live his, her, or they's authentic self! When did you come out as straight, honey? BrianH123 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

homophobia category

Why it is listed under homophobia? Can straight people feel positive about themselves too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:f100:d88b:40ea:af2f:9919:e146 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a valid argument. I would not say that straight pride is necessarily homophobic in nature. While some people who do celebrate straight pride can be homophobic, it is not exclusive to those people. Ethan Parmet (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CATDEF. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not editors' opinions, and also not unsupported false equivalence. Almost no one "celebrates" straight pride at all, but those who purport to are celebrating it specifically in contrast to LGBTQ pride. As the article and reliable sources explain, straight pride exists as opposition to LGBTQ pride, and nothing else, so it should not be a surprise that this is associated with homophobia. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

this is a very narcissistic and single-minded view. Dollardollardollar3 (talk) Dollardollardollar3 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a forum

Per the box at the top of the page. I've archived the discussions as none of them pertained to the actual content of the article. Gugrak (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)