LGBT (or GLBT) is an acronym used as a collective term to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. It is considered less controversial than the terms ''queer'' or ''lesbigay''. Up until the sexual revolution of the 1960s there were no widely known terms for describing the people in these groups other than the derogatory terms used by the heterosexual community. As people began organizing for their sexual rights they needed a term that would say who they were in a positive way. The first term used, Homosexual, carried too much negative baggage and was replaced by "Gay". As Lesbians forged their own identity, the term "Gay and Lesbian" became more common. Many variants exist, including permutations which merely change the order of the letters; but ''LGBT'' is the most common acronym and the one most accepted in current usage. When not inclusive of transgender people it is shortened to ''LGB''. It may also include two additional ''Q''s for ''queer'' and ''questioning'' (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (''LGBTQ'', ''LGBTQQ''), an ''I'' for intersex (''LGBTI''), another ''T'' for ''transsexual'' (''LGBTT''), another ''T'' (or ''TS'' or the numeral 2) for Two-Spirit people, and an ''A'' for straight ally (''LGBTA''). At its fullest, then, it is some permutation of ''LGBTTTIQQA'', though this is extremely rare. The magazine ''Anything That Moves'' coined the acronym ''FABGLITTER'' (from Sexual_fetishism, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Gender Revolution). The term has not made its way into common usage. The terms transsexual and intersex are regarded by some people as falling under the umbrella term ''transgender'', though many transsexual and intersex people object to this (both for different reasons). Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) organizations often use ''LGBTQA'' for ''LGBT''—questioning and allies. The term became increasingly common from the mid 1990s and as of 2004, ''LGBT'' has become so mainstream that it has been adopted by the majority of List of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community centers and the gay press in most English-speaking countries. In October 2004, media company PlanetOut Inc., which owns the PlanetOut.com and Gay.com domains, chose ''LGBT'' as its ticker symbol when it listed on the NASDAQ exchange after a successful IPO. To date it has remained mostly a text-based, rather than a conversational, term. However, ''LGBT'' is not uncontroversial. For example, some transgender and transsexual people do not like the term because they do not believe their cause is the same as that of LGB people; they may also object when an organization adds a ''T'' to their acronym when the level of service they actually offer to trans people is questionable. There are also LGB people who don't like the ''T'' for the same or similar reasons. Similarly, some intersex people want to be included into LGBT groups and would prefer ''LGBTI''; others insist that they are not a part of the LGBT community and would rather not be included in the acronym. Many transsexual, transgender, and intersex persons believe that a sharp distinction should be drawn between sexual orientation and gender identity. ''GLB'' concerns the former; ''TTI'' concerns the latter. Many people have looked for a generic term to replace acronyms. Words like "queer" and "rainbow" have been tried but most have not been widely adopted. "Queer" has many negative connotations to older people who remember the word as a taunt and insult. "Rainbow" has connotations that recall the hippies, New Age movements and politics (Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.) ==See also== *gender *transgender *gay community *homosexuality *queer *queer theory *gay *lesbian *list of gay-related topics *list of transgender-related topics *transgenderism ==External links== *[http://www.planetoutinc.com/ PlanetOut Inc.] *[http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt GLBT Health] LGBT
== Most common or standard == I thought GLBT was the standard order of the letters. It's the one I usually see. To be honest, I've never seen LGBT outside of Wikipedia. -User:Branddobbe 17:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) It's all in the eye of the author, really. GLBT is definitely the most popular but I've seen pretty much every permutation of the letters that can be built (including F, for friendly, A, for "allied", and/or Q, for questioning (or queer)). It makes a rather interesting alphabet soup. --User:Chirstyn 17:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't want to claim that one order is the majority and another is not, but I'll list myself here as somebody that's more familiar with the "LGBT" ordering in RL. To be sure, I've seen both. (For the sake of the following debate, let me also note that I've come to queer culture in the past 5 years or less, and almost entirely in the USA.) -- User:Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I would have thought that GLBT made more sense. The word "gay" is the most significant because in its broader sense it includes lesbians. Lesbian is more specific, because it refers only to gay females. Bisexual comes after gay/lesbian because it is the gay/lesbian part of a bisexual person's sexuality that makes them distinct from the majority of society and part of the group that the acronym intends to capture. Transgender comes last because it is the least common by incidence and because it's a slightly different group. :Actually last time I spent time in circles where such acronyms were prevalent the it had become: GLBTIQ. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning. No wonder people are looking for generic terms like "queer" and "rainbow" User:Ben Arnold 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I've seen both in real life, but am generally more familiar with LGBT. I ''think'' some people prefer LGBT because it doesn't give the men (G) primacy over everyone else, but I couldn't swear to that. The magazine ''Anything That Moves'' coined the acronym FABGLITTER (Fetish, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution), which I ''love'' but don't think we can actually use on Wikipedia. User:Bearcat 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC) === US vs others? == Google says * GLBT 621,000 * LGBT 495,000 In .uk, LGBT is far more common * LGBT 18,900 * GLBT 4,270 other results * GLBT: .us * LGBT: .au .ca * even: .nz So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing. User:Morwen - User_talk:Morwen 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I ran this search today on Google and found: :* LGBT 1,710,000 :* GLBT 1,290,000 :Yahoo! is showing: :* LGBT 2,450,000 :* GLBT 1,520,000 User:Tdempsey 08:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Old vs new? === Lets look at it another way besides most and least common. I would argue the GL(B) is an older configuration and that more people and organizations are moving towards LGBT. Here's my approximate timeline: # Gay and lesbian # Gay, lesbian, and bisexual # GLB # LGB # LGBT # etc User:Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Sexual minority== It seems the article name must be "neutral".
Since only one name may be used, it can only have one form, and thus a representative form must be chosen. I argue LGBT is most representative of the acronyms.
We could find POVs which insist on a more thourough discernment of terms than "LGBTI" (such as "LGBTIQQA"), but the longer the acronym the less representative because of the greater possibility of variance ("LGBTQQIA", for example) and the lesser frequency of its use.
Thus I propose the article be moved to sexual minority, as this article would include who is included as a sexual minority according to different POVs and thus a natural and ready place for the acronym discussion. User:Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I would argue that a sexual minorities page be developed that links to this one. They are inherently different terms. I've been out for 4 years and I don't know of any LGBT person that would identify as a sexual minority (even if it is accurate). Also, I don't know anyone who would look for information about LGBT people under that term. User:Alison9 03:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Well, LGB people are occasionally characterised as a "sexual minority" but whether some do so themselves, I don't know. Can't recall such a use, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Transgender, transsexual and intersex people and also certainly allies don't really fit under that umbrella, though. Also, this article explains what LGBT(?) is, not "sexual minoriy". Also, BDSM people for example are often labeled "sexual minority", which is an entirely different matter. -- User:AlexR 05:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::"Groups that challenge traditional gender structure - Revert - "sexual minorities" instead of "lgbti" is so wrong, it's insulting!)" AlexR, edit summary ::::Sexual minority means sexual in the full sense, sexuality and gender. Rather than being a term frequently used for self-identification, it has the advantage of being a description. User:Hyacinth 05:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::And what was the point in copying the edit summary here? There is a reason, you know, I wrote it in the edit summary (of another article into the bargain) and not a comment. Anyway, very many both transsexual and intersex people already see a problem with these words because the "sex" part leads to so many misunderstandings, namely, that the "sex" is usually understood to be "the action" rather than "the equiptment". (And that's the second use of "sex", not gender!) "Transgender" was so widely addopted also the very same reason. And that very same misunderstanding leads to a lot of discrimination against T&I people already. So I really do not see the advantage of using a term that is ''seen as'' insulting by many and ''used as an insult'' by many. Apart from that, even if it were not insulting, it would confuse sex and gender, and these are two very different things, and a term that confuses them again is hardly a description. :::::I do assume, from your previous edits, that you are in good faith trying to find a solution to a problem (although I don't know what the problem is supposed to be), but really, this is not a good idea ''at all''. The WP does not have to use self-descriptions, but there is certainly no reason to use terms that are inaccurate, understood to be insulting and used as insults, and which do not exactly promote understanding of the matter instead. -- User:AlexR 11:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::Please cite sources stating that "sexual minority" is "insulting", "inaccurate", or "used as an insult" as per Wikipedia:NPOV, your own admission of ignorance, and against the following examples: *[http://www.smyal.org/ Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL)]: "the only youth service agency solely dedicated to meeting the needs of youth ages 13-21 in the metropolitan Washington, DC area who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, as well as those questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity." *[http://www.jasmyn.org/ Jacksonville Area Sexual Minority Youth Network (JASMYN)]: "a youth services and advocacy organization that focuses specifically on youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or uncertain about their sexual orientation (or youth who become labeled as such because of their behavior or situations." *[http://www.rosmy.org/ Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth]: "Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth (ROSMY) is a non-profit agency that provides support services for Richmond area gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth 20 years of age and younger." *[http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/scsm/ Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities (SCSM)] "The Commission's role is to effectively address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments." ::::::User:Hyacinth 22:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::Excuse me, but first, these groups appear to be your classical LGB groups who started adding a T only later, and keeping the "sexual minority" thing. (Many of those additions, it turned out, were purely cosmetical anyway, it is just at the moment something everybody does.) Second, why the aggressive tone? Until now your edits were neither aggressive nor so ... odd. I am rather surprised by your behaviour right now! And third, I admitted ignorance as to whether LGB people actually used it, not about the fact that I have never met a trans-person who did not feel that the lable was simply not applicable, to say the least. I also explained why it is used as an insult, because the label fires up the not exactly uncommon prejudice that trans* is somehow related to sexual preferences, or even that it is itself a sexual preference, which it is clearly not. Also, your statement that the "sexual" means both sex (the action) and gender is a triffle strange, there is a reason, you know, that people started using "gender", which was not used in the current sense until a few decades ago. :::::::I also do not feel that right now there is any use in further debate, not when you behave like that. I do sincerely hope, though, that it is just a temporary problem. -- User:AlexR 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::::Actually, "sexual minority" seems to be used after the inclusion of transgender and/or intersex people and issues in a group, such as SCSM, which "was formerly known as the Seattle Commission for Lesbians and Gays," but now, "address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle," and is named Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities. :::::::::Well, not being American I don't know, but either online or offline (thereby including US resitents) I have never met a transgender person nor an intersex one who does feel covered by "sexual minority" and most regard it as potentially insulting, and at best inaccurate. (Unless the happen to be ''also'' part of a sexual minority, like gay and lesbian trans- or intersex people. [AR] ::::::::"LGBT" is certainly offensive, probably insuling to some, such as intersex people or allies who feel intersex people are not transgendered and thus excluded, or people who feel transgendered people shouldn't be include, or people who hate acronyms. Simply because there are people who feel in similar ways about "sexual minority" does not then exclude its use, as it does not exclude the use of "LGBT". :::::::::LGBT is certainly not uncontroversial, but this article does nothing but explain what the acronym stands for. In fact, there are trans people who don't like the term because they don't want to have anything to do with LGB people, there are LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons, there are intersex people who want it to be LGBTI for obvious reasons (and LGBTI is included in the article, it is just rarer than LGBT, and now LGBTI redirects to LGBT), there are people (intersex and non-intersex) who argue that intersex alone is no reason to throw people in with LGBT people, there are intersex people who feel that the connection is offending, and I think that sentence became long enough. It is certainly expandable. [AR] ::::::::If you claim both that the term is rare and that you are ignorant of its possible use, I urge to to find out about it. I have provided examples of its use as self-identification and its use inclusive of transgender and intersex. :::::::::Yes, and I did not stop by to make a count of trans- and intersex people who find the term offensive or at the very least inaccurate, but until now my experience has been 100%. (And it was debated in various context with quite a few people, too.) [AR] ::::::::I do not find it "odd" or "a triffle strange" to assert the common knowledge and specific example that "sexual" is used to mean sexuality/intercourse/romance and gender/sex. :::::::::I do, because I know you are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, even if still many people are not. And frankly, I am also certain that you are aware that references about sex (the equiptment) are rather often confused with sex (the action). If now a term would attempt to throw these matters (sex, sex and gender) into one term, by using the one that practically causes the most problems to trans- and also sometimes intersex people - well, it would not be a good idea. [AR] ::::::::This debate does seem to be at a standstill. However, since this issue will continue to come up as long as people propose or insist upon the inclusion or exclusion of letters, groups, or terms (in and outside of wikipedia), a "sexual minority" article will eventually be written, and for both this, that, and future article I suggest that you find sources to represent your assertions. :::::::::I already have them, but if you need to check them, try mentioning in any trans or intersex group that you consider them a "sexual minority". I think that would very much clarify the matter for you. In some groups, I recomment taking a body guard with you, though. [AR] ::::::::Given that this article appears to need its own page for interarticle clarification purposes, given your objections, and the standstill, I withdraw my proposal to redirect this page. User:Hyacinth 00:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::That seems like a good idea. But when you start writing Sexual minorites do make sure it is NPOV and mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage. -- User:AlexR 04:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::It would seem then that this article should also "mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage," and not do "nothing but explain what the acronym stands for." User:Hyacinth 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::::Hm, but the article already does that. Not that it cannot be improved (which article can), but that is there already (and was, in a short from, before your edit, too). -- User:AlexR 13:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::There a may be a problem of inclusion accuracy with the term too: consider a post-transition heterosexual transperson; their inclusion in being a "sexual minority" depends strongly on what one defines a "sexual minority" to be. If one takes ''sexual'' to describe sex, then that person is not part of a sexual minority. If one takes ''sexual'' to describe physiology, then that person may not be considered part of a sexual minority, but intersexed people would be. If one uses the former definition of the act to determine sexual minority, then the inclusion of trans* and intersexed people of whatever operative becomes problematic for reasons already outlined by Alex above. User:Dysprosia 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Transgender or Transgendered? == This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- User:SamuelWantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC) :There's some debate over that, but as far as I can see, transgender was originaly coined as both noun and adjective, same as with transsexual. (Ever heard "transsexual''ed''"? Me neither.) Transgender''ed'' has become more common only in the past few years, and is still behind on Google count. I personally can't stand it ;-) User:AlexR 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC) ::GLAAD says in its [http://glaad.org/media/guide/transfocus.php media guide] 'The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word.' and I agree. I researched this and asked around years ago and found "transgender" to be the correct spelling. User:Tdempsey 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ''Sexual'' is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a ''transsexual person''. ''Gender'' is a noun (see [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gender Merriam-Webster], therefore a person should be a ''transgendered person''. Adding ''-ed'' gives us an adjective. If the common usage in the US is to drop the ''-ed'', it wouldn't surprise me. It's kind of like ''iced tea'' becoming ''ice tea'' in the US. If it's wrong grammatically (and I may be mistaken here, feel free to challenge my logic), should we just go with the common (US) usage? The UK has, I believe, a sizeable T community. What is the common usage there? User:Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LGBT (or GLBT, BGLT, etc.) is an acronym used as a collective term to refer to lesbian, gay men, bisexual and transgender people. Sexology Sexuality Human societies gd:Gnethan:LCDT
== Categories as acronyms? == Categories shouldn't be acronyms, please fix this. User:Oberiko 12:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) :I think that categories like this maybe should be exceptions - "LGBT" is very commonly used, and the alternative, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered" is pretty long. -User:Sethmahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) * I agreek with Oberiko. The acronym may be common in the US, but it is entirely unclear where I come from. Find a suitable euphemism, I guess? User:Radiant! 09:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) **That's interesting - where do you come from, Radiant!? What suitable euphemism might you suggest? 'Lesbigay' has been tried, with little success (it also leaves out trans people), 'queer' has been tried, but many people find that offensive, 'homosexual' is offensive to many (and leaves out trans people). The best solution we've been able to come up with is to use LGBT as the category name, and then have an explanation on the category page. Any other options you can think of to throw out? -User:Sethmahoney 20:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) == Cleanup == I'm thinking this category needs some cleanup, but I don't want to make a unilateral reorganization. Here's the deal: we have :Category:LGBT, which seems to be used for a lot of LGBT, including specifically gay and lesbian, topics, and also have :Category:Homosexuality, which I would rather (personally) only see used for articles about groups or events that would be sympathetic toward a clinical view of gay and lesbian sexuality (such as the Homosexuality and ... articles, or articles on the "treatment" of homosexuality), we have :Category:Gay-related topics, :Category:Lesbian-related topics, and :Category:Bisexual-related topics, but rarely are articles exclusive to one of these topics. We also have :Category:LGBT civil rights which, after a helpful note and some thinking I'm thinking maybe should be changed to :Category:LGBT rights (to include both civil and, more broadly, human rights, and thus include gay history as well as current gay issues). So here's what I propose: move articles from Gay-, Lesbian-, and Bisexual-related topics to :Category:LGBT, move all articles specifically dealing with a pathological view of homosexuality and all articles titled "Homosexuality and ..." to :Category:Homosexuality, and change :Category:LGBT civil rights to :Category:LGBT rights. -User:Sethmahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) :Your categorization scheme seems to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned, which does not seem advisable. User:Hyacinth 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::How does my proposal seem to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned? -User:Sethmahoney 04:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) Is there any more thought or interest in cleaning up the LGBT sections and categories including pulling the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender sections together. Frankly, I can see a separate gay wiki but would like to see the gay information on this great site more organized. -- User:Tdempsey 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Pat Robertson and Restructuring== Why did you classify Pat Robertson under homosexuality, except maybe to piss him off? I mean, that's not the worst goal in the world, but it seems unencyclopedic. -- User:Jmabel 18:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)User talk:Jmabel>
I've been putting articles that relate to a specifically clinical view of homosexuality and those that deal with opinions on and views regarding homosexuality (along with the people who express them) in :Category:Homosexuality (which would otherwise be pretty much redundant with :Category:LGBT), including those on people who have public views opposing GLB issues and people. I've put a few other people in the category, including Laura Schlessinger and Fred Phelps as well. I've been thinking for a while that they will need their own category, but :Category:People opposed to homosexuality is all I can think of, and it sounds absurd to me (how can you be ''opposed'' to homosexuality?), so it hasn't happened yet. -User:Sethmahoney 18:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Let's keep dialog on one page; I'll temporarily add this to my watchlist. I have a feeling we'll want to copy this somewhere when we are done. I'm not sure if :Category:People opposed to homosexuality is exactly the right title, but something like that is needed, or :Category:Homosexuality is going to get very confusing: especially as to whom it applies to. We do have a :Category:Anti-gay rights legislation, which is not exactly on the mark, but maybe something else under its parent :Category:LGBT civil rights? Or under the more open-ended :Category:Gay-related topics? In any case: #We may want a categorization hierarchy distinguishing: ##People who say homosexuality is sinful. ##People who advocate criminalization or civil penalties for homosexual behavior. ##People who advocate or perpetrate anti-gay violence. #The mere fact that someone holds an opinion (and even has expressed it) does not seem to me to be adequate reason for inclusion in the category. I the Pat Robertson article, we quote one homophobic remark. We don't really discuss his views on homosexuality beyond that. Is this a useful categorization under the circumstances? -- User:Jmabel 19:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) :I'm all for breaking up :Category:Homosexuality and possibly removing it completely. As I said on the :Category:LGBT talk page, I'm trying to press for (or just do it myself) a restructuring of the LGBT categories, as they're a mess right now. I also think that :Category:Gay-related topics needs to be broken up and deleted, as it is pretty vague and pretty much redundant with :Category:LGBT (though I would be in favor of creating a :Category:LGB or something similar to deal with those articles that exclusively talk about issues of sexuality and not transgender). As far as your categorization scheme goes, those people who advocate the criminalization of homosexual behavior are often people sho say it is sinful, so there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two categories, suggesting to me that they should be merged into one, and the same with people who advocate anti-gay violence and people who advocate criminalization. Really, what we're talking about is two categories: :Category:Homophobia and :Category:Homophobes (and possibly :Category:People who are against homosexuality for religious reasons), but of course we can't call it that because it would be POV. As far as Pat Robertson goes, my reasoning was that his comment was extremely homophobic, extremely public, extremely opportunistic (using 9-11 to attack gay people), and very obviously representative of his views on homosexuality. He has also made himself an icon of the anti-gay-rights movement. To me, this justifies his inclusion. Also, I was thinking of copying all of this to the talk page for :Category:LGBT if you don't object. -User:Sethmahoney 19:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) :Yes, please do copy it or move it, but can we do one more back-and-forth here first? #I'm glad someone is thinking about this, but now that the current categories have been used enough to be suggestive of the problems, you might want to stop actively place articles into categories likely to be reworked soon. #::Agreed. #Yes, a category :Category:Homophobia would be very controversial, and a :Category:Homophobes more so. We already have :Category:LGBT civil rights where that's relevant: it can include both those who support and those who oppose civil rights for LBGT people. We could easily add a :Category:religious views of LGBT and use it similarly. #::I agree that's a good place to put them, but what do we call them? :Category:Supporters of LGBT civil rights and :Category:Opponents of LGBT civil rights? Something like that is pretty long, and I don't think a lot of people who would fit into the latter category would not agree that they actually ''oppose'' gay rights, but that some other concern supercedes any particular gay rights issue, like their conception of family or marriage, their religion, or whatever. Actually, I just got an idea. I'm going to do a little poking through CBN et al's web sites and see what they call themselves. -User:Sethmahoney 22:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) -- User:Jmabel 21:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Okay, that idea wasn't too fruitful. Of course Pat Roberston and the like aren't going to refer to themselves in the third person, so I'm not going to get anything useful there. "Opponents of gay rights", though, seems to be a fairly common term in the US media, though, so that might actually work. -User:Sethmahoney 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) I don't think everyone is going to be cleanly a "supporter" or an "opponent" anyway; for example there are gay people who are pretty appalling on their attitude toward transsexuals. Subordinate to :Category:LGBT civil rights we already have :Category:LGBT rights activists, so what we call that side is easy, the category is already there. I wouldn't object others who have significant stands on the issue of LGBT civil rights being classified for now directly in :Category:LGBT civil rights until we can come up with a name for the subcategory: it's certainly a lot more appropriate than :Category:Homosexuality. I still think that the religious issue and the rights issue are separate. Many (although not all) who come at this from a religious perspective are not neatly "supporters" or "opponents". I'd advocate a category :Category:religious views of LGBT and after we have, say, 20 people in it, it's time to see whether it needs further subcategories. That's probably about it from me on this. Feel free to move the discussion to :Category:LGBT, I'll put that on my watchlist (and drop your user page). Ping me if you want me back in the loop about something ''not'' on :Category:LGBT. -- User:Jmabel 23:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) == Tidying up == So the LBGT, gay, homosexual, sexology, and sexuality categories are getting pretty messy. I'm going to try making some logical subcategories here, having to do with religion, festivals, civil rights, etc. Feel free to join in or comment. -- User:Beland 05:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Reclassification == So I think I'd like to reclassify everything under "Category:Homosexuality", "Category:Gay-related topics", "Category:Lesbian-related topics", and "Category:Bisexual-related topics" and delete these categories, which seem like a bunch of twisty categories, all alike. I'd instead create "Category:Sexual orientation and science", "Category:Sexual orienation and society", "Category:Gay and lesbian culture", "Category:LGBT symbols", and "Category:Sexual orientation and identity". Thoughts? -- User:Beland 14:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I thought they were a twisty bunch of categories each slightly different. No actual opinion, but I take that you, like me, are ''not'' one of the younger Wikipedians. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) ::I like "sexual orientation" rather than "homosexuality" - this seems to be the way all the related articles are headed anyway. -User:Sethmahoney 00:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) :::I like it. User:Hyacinth 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :OK, cool. I'll proceed at my leisure. (I don't know if you mean young to Wikipedia, which I have been active at for less than a year, or new to the universe, which I have been participating in for 26 years or so. But enough about me...) -- User:Beland 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I was wrong. "...bunch of twisty categories, all alike..." had me guessing you were old enough to have been using computers befor the days of visual operating systems. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) :::I remember when Windows first came out, but not X. 8) -- User:Beland 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure the new categories are any clearer than the old. It seems like all the topics are being simultaneously lumped into three or four categories each, and I'm not really clear what the difference between the categories is supposed to be. Categorizing should make things clearer, and I don't think that's being accomplished at the moment. --User:Azkar 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Being in multiple categories is not inherently a bad sign. Can you indicate where it seems to be a problem? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 18:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) :::Off the top of my head .. fag (pejorative) was recently placed into :Category:Sexual orientation and identity, :Category:Gay and lesbian culture, and :Category:Sexual orientation and society. Personally, I don't really see the term fitting neatly into any of these categories. As well, the categories themselves aren't very self-intuitive. Gay and lesbian culture is relatively self-explanatory (presumably, articles relating to things specific to the gay community), but the other two are more vague in what they're meant to deal with. --User:Azkar 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::I can follow its being a member of any of these categories, considering that the term is used offensively from outside and non-offensively within the gay community in much the same way that the word 'nigger' is used. Maybe we should pause and sit down and think about where we all want this categorizational scheme to go. Myself, I think the three major categories work fairly well, and would maybe like to see a collection of subcats to help organize them. I can see, though, that separating trans culture from gay and lesbian culture is sometimes difficult, and may be offensive to some. How would the rest of you like to see the categories play out? -User:Sethmahoney 21:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) :::::Sometimes lumping trans people with LGB people can also be offensive. Other times, it's just not applicable. I must admit that I've probably made inconsistent decisions on that score, but I thought I'd leave it up to people more familiar with trans issues to do any necessary cleanup. -- User:Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::You're right. There's a really great contributor, AlexR, who has written and edited a lot of trans articles. Maybe we should seek some advice. -User:Sethmahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) I also noticed that the vocabulary terms were a weak point in the new scheme. I wanted to create a new category just for slang terms, including offensive ones. Or maybe one just for offensive terms. "LGBT argot" is supposed to be only for terms that mostly only "in-group" people are supposed to use and understand. Ironically, I don't think most people know what "argot" means, either. I certainly didn't until I came across this category. Some of the terms are also "identity" terms, which is why they ended up in "Sexual orientation and identity". All of the "in" vocabulary terms could also be considered part of the culture, I guess, which is why some words ended up there. I guess this just shows why there should be a clear "words" category, perhaps a subcategory of culture, etc., and argot a subcategory of that? -- User:Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :To further confuse the issue, many in-words for the gay community are also pejoratives when used by non-members, so they should also go in "Sexual orientation and society". Maybe we should create a linguistic category, for all words used within and outside the community, and then subdivide it as appropriate (and if needed). -User:Sethmahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) I have created :Category:LGBT terms. Help is needed to move or add the appropriate articles to it. -- User:Beland 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Do you think articles such as gay and lesbian should be moved from the main :Category:LGBT, to :Category:LGBT terms? The articles encompass a lot more than just terminology, of course, but I think inclusion in :Category:Sexual orientation and identity probably covers those bases. I'm just thinking out loud, here. I was going to do some categorization, but had difficulty making many concrete decisions (I did move queer) --User:Azkar 04:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==:Category:Gay travel destinations== I had set up a new category on WIkipedia yesterday— Category:Gay travel destinations— which had sparked a bit of discussion and eventually listing on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It would be nice to be certain that there is adequate queer/gay/homosexual/GLBT discussion on this subject. Please consider Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Gay_travel_destinations. Best regards. w:en:User:Sfdan 07:09, 29 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==LGBT is not "most common== It is Wikipedia policy to call things by THEIR MOST COMMON NAME. LGBT is not "most common". I'm American and have never seen the term til now (and NEVER EVER heard the term). It needs to be replaced with something not cryptic. Anything in the dictionary in common usage that roughly identifies the category will do. Non-heterosexual, Sexual identity, LGBT (aka Non-heterosexual),Sexuality and so forth. But this cryptic LGBT has got to go. User:4.250.177.11 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Since you are weighing in anonymously, I'm not sure how heavily to count that. For what ever it's worth, I'm a 50-year-old straight guy, and the term is completely familiar to me, has been for at least a decade. And I don't know a more common term with the same breadth. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm Canadian, and I've seen the term used extensively in both American and Canadian media (LGBT-oriented, as well as mainstream). Like Jmabel, I can't think of any other term that's more widely used and recognized (in North America, at least), that covers the same range, and that remains neutral. --User:Azkar 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I have seen LGBT more lately than GLBT and I believe it is an issue of the time we live in. I personally wish we pick one and stick with it. I vote for the current LGBT. There is also a search on Google and Yahoo! showing LGBT is more common than GBLT under Talk:LGBT. -- User:Tdempsey 05:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this should include straight, possibly then excluding heteronormativity. User:Hyacinth 05:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) I found this box in Heteronormativity where already an edit war about another box was going on, and well, putting in this box didn't help. (This page has had edit wars for weeks now).
Also, I doubt its use, especially since the links seem to be choosen very arbitraily. Why are Transsexual, Transgender, Intersexual and Heteronormativity all linked seperately, but not the much more useful List of transgender-related topics. Besides, the later has many of the links in the box in it; and is in the links at the bottom of heteronormativity (Probably others as well).
There seems to be no consens of those boxes anywhere, either, they just turned up recently and are thrown into articles. What is wrong with a simple link? And if it has to be a box, shouldn't it link to a page about it? I could not find this one, had to go to #wikipedia to find it.
I think there should be some more debate about this box, and those boxes in general, before they are put to such a wide use. -- User:AlexR 12:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==TfD'd== This template was listed for deletion on WP:TFD. The decision was to delete this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005 for more information. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 17:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with LGBT:
LGBT
LGBT
LGBT
LGBT
Lgbt
LGBT-related_films
LGBT-stub
LGBTA
LGBTI
LGBTIQ
LGBTQ
Lgbtq
LGBT_actors
LGBT_argot
LGBT_art
LGBT_artists
LGBT_artists
LGBT_athletes
LGBT_athletes
LGBT_Characters_in_The_Star_Trek_Universe
LGBT_Characters_in_The_Star_Trek_Universe
LGBT_civil_rights
LGBT_civil_rights_timeline
LGBT_culture
LGBT_culture
LGBT_events
LGBT_forums
LGBT_history
LGBT_history
LGBT_identities
LGBT_issues_and_religion
LGBT_literature
LGBT_literature
LGBT_literature
LGBT_media
LGBT_musicians
LGBT_mythology
LGBT_noticeboard
LGBT_noticeboard
LGBT_notice_board
LGBT_notice_board
LGBT_notice_board/Archive_1
LGBT_organizations
LGBT_people_from_Canada
LGBT_politicians
LGBT_rights
LGBT_rights_activists
LGBT_Rights_Legislation
LGBT_rights_legislation_in_the_United_States
LGBT_rights_opposition
LGBT_rights_opposition
LGBT_rights_organizations
LGBT_stubs
LGBT_Student_Movement
LGBT_symbols
LGBT_television_series
LGBT_terms
LGBT_writers
LGBT
LGBT (or GLBT) is an acronym used as a collective term to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. It is considered less controversial than the terms ''queer'' or ''lesbigay''. Up until the sexual revolution of the 1960s there were no widely known terms for describing the people in these groups other than the derogatory terms used by the heterosexual community. As people began organizing for their sexual rights they needed a term that would say who they were in a positive way. The first term used, Homosexual, carried too much negative baggage and was replaced by "Gay". As Lesbians forged their own identity, the term "Gay and Lesbian" became more common. Many variants exist, including permutations which merely change the order of the letters; but ''LGBT'' is the most common acronym and the one most accepted in current usage. When not inclusive of transgender people it is shortened to ''LGB''. It may also include two additional ''Q''s for ''queer'' and ''questioning'' (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (''LGBTQ'', ''LGBTQQ''), an ''I'' for intersex (''LGBTI''), another ''T'' for ''transsexual'' (''LGBTT''), another ''T'' (or ''TS'' or the numeral 2) for Two-Spirit people, and an ''A'' for straight ally (''LGBTA''). At its fullest, then, it is some permutation of ''LGBTTTIQQA'', though this is extremely rare. The magazine ''Anything That Moves'' coined the acronym ''FABGLITTER'' (from Sexual_fetishism, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Gender Revolution). The term has not made its way into common usage. The terms transsexual and intersex are regarded by some people as falling under the umbrella term ''transgender'', though many transsexual and intersex people object to this (both for different reasons). Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) organizations often use ''LGBTQA'' for ''LGBT''—questioning and allies. The term became increasingly common from the mid 1990s and as of 2004, ''LGBT'' has become so mainstream that it has been adopted by the majority of List of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community centers and the gay press in most English-speaking countries. In October 2004, media company PlanetOut Inc., which owns the PlanetOut.com and Gay.com domains, chose ''LGBT'' as its ticker symbol when it listed on the NASDAQ exchange after a successful IPO. To date it has remained mostly a text-based, rather than a conversational, term. However, ''LGBT'' is not uncontroversial. For example, some transgender and transsexual people do not like the term because they do not believe their cause is the same as that of LGB people; they may also object when an organization adds a ''T'' to their acronym when the level of service they actually offer to trans people is questionable. There are also LGB people who don't like the ''T'' for the same or similar reasons. Similarly, some intersex people want to be included into LGBT groups and would prefer ''LGBTI''; others insist that they are not a part of the LGBT community and would rather not be included in the acronym. Many transsexual, transgender, and intersex persons believe that a sharp distinction should be drawn between sexual orientation and gender identity. ''GLB'' concerns the former; ''TTI'' concerns the latter. Many people have looked for a generic term to replace acronyms. Words like "queer" and "rainbow" have been tried but most have not been widely adopted. "Queer" has many negative connotations to older people who remember the word as a taunt and insult. "Rainbow" has connotations that recall the hippies, New Age movements and politics (Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.) ==See also== *gender *transgender *gay community *homosexuality *queer *queer theory *gay *lesbian *list of gay-related topics *list of transgender-related topics *transgenderism ==External links== *[http://www.planetoutinc.com/ PlanetOut Inc.] *[http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt GLBT Health] LGBT
LGBT
== Most common or standard == I thought GLBT was the standard order of the letters. It's the one I usually see. To be honest, I've never seen LGBT outside of Wikipedia. -User:Branddobbe 17:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) It's all in the eye of the author, really. GLBT is definitely the most popular but I've seen pretty much every permutation of the letters that can be built (including F, for friendly, A, for "allied", and/or Q, for questioning (or queer)). It makes a rather interesting alphabet soup. --User:Chirstyn 17:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't want to claim that one order is the majority and another is not, but I'll list myself here as somebody that's more familiar with the "LGBT" ordering in RL. To be sure, I've seen both. (For the sake of the following debate, let me also note that I've come to queer culture in the past 5 years or less, and almost entirely in the USA.) -- User:Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I would have thought that GLBT made more sense. The word "gay" is the most significant because in its broader sense it includes lesbians. Lesbian is more specific, because it refers only to gay females. Bisexual comes after gay/lesbian because it is the gay/lesbian part of a bisexual person's sexuality that makes them distinct from the majority of society and part of the group that the acronym intends to capture. Transgender comes last because it is the least common by incidence and because it's a slightly different group. :Actually last time I spent time in circles where such acronyms were prevalent the it had become: GLBTIQ. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning. No wonder people are looking for generic terms like "queer" and "rainbow" User:Ben Arnold 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I've seen both in real life, but am generally more familiar with LGBT. I ''think'' some people prefer LGBT because it doesn't give the men (G) primacy over everyone else, but I couldn't swear to that. The magazine ''Anything That Moves'' coined the acronym FABGLITTER (Fetish, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution), which I ''love'' but don't think we can actually use on Wikipedia. User:Bearcat 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC) === US vs others? == Google says * GLBT 621,000 * LGBT 495,000 In .uk, LGBT is far more common * LGBT 18,900 * GLBT 4,270 other results * GLBT: .us * LGBT: .au .ca * even: .nz So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing. User:Morwen - User_talk:Morwen 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I ran this search today on Google and found: :* LGBT 1,710,000 :* GLBT 1,290,000 :Yahoo! is showing: :* LGBT 2,450,000 :* GLBT 1,520,000 User:Tdempsey 08:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Old vs new? === Lets look at it another way besides most and least common. I would argue the GL(B) is an older configuration and that more people and organizations are moving towards LGBT. Here's my approximate timeline: # Gay and lesbian # Gay, lesbian, and bisexual # GLB # LGB # LGBT # etc User:Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Sexual minority== It seems the article name must be "neutral".
Since only one name may be used, it can only have one form, and thus a representative form must be chosen. I argue LGBT is most representative of the acronyms.
We could find POVs which insist on a more thourough discernment of terms than "LGBTI" (such as "LGBTIQQA"), but the longer the acronym the less representative because of the greater possibility of variance ("LGBTQQIA", for example) and the lesser frequency of its use.
Thus I propose the article be moved to sexual minority, as this article would include who is included as a sexual minority according to different POVs and thus a natural and ready place for the acronym discussion. User:Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I would argue that a sexual minorities page be developed that links to this one. They are inherently different terms. I've been out for 4 years and I don't know of any LGBT person that would identify as a sexual minority (even if it is accurate). Also, I don't know anyone who would look for information about LGBT people under that term. User:Alison9 03:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Well, LGB people are occasionally characterised as a "sexual minority" but whether some do so themselves, I don't know. Can't recall such a use, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Transgender, transsexual and intersex people and also certainly allies don't really fit under that umbrella, though. Also, this article explains what LGBT(?) is, not "sexual minoriy". Also, BDSM people for example are often labeled "sexual minority", which is an entirely different matter. -- User:AlexR 05:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::"Groups that challenge traditional gender structure - Revert - "sexual minorities" instead of "lgbti" is so wrong, it's insulting!)" AlexR, edit summary ::::Sexual minority means sexual in the full sense, sexuality and gender. Rather than being a term frequently used for self-identification, it has the advantage of being a description. User:Hyacinth 05:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::And what was the point in copying the edit summary here? There is a reason, you know, I wrote it in the edit summary (of another article into the bargain) and not a comment. Anyway, very many both transsexual and intersex people already see a problem with these words because the "sex" part leads to so many misunderstandings, namely, that the "sex" is usually understood to be "the action" rather than "the equiptment". (And that's the second use of "sex", not gender!) "Transgender" was so widely addopted also the very same reason. And that very same misunderstanding leads to a lot of discrimination against T&I people already. So I really do not see the advantage of using a term that is ''seen as'' insulting by many and ''used as an insult'' by many. Apart from that, even if it were not insulting, it would confuse sex and gender, and these are two very different things, and a term that confuses them again is hardly a description. :::::I do assume, from your previous edits, that you are in good faith trying to find a solution to a problem (although I don't know what the problem is supposed to be), but really, this is not a good idea ''at all''. The WP does not have to use self-descriptions, but there is certainly no reason to use terms that are inaccurate, understood to be insulting and used as insults, and which do not exactly promote understanding of the matter instead. -- User:AlexR 11:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::Please cite sources stating that "sexual minority" is "insulting", "inaccurate", or "used as an insult" as per Wikipedia:NPOV, your own admission of ignorance, and against the following examples: *[http://www.smyal.org/ Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL)]: "the only youth service agency solely dedicated to meeting the needs of youth ages 13-21 in the metropolitan Washington, DC area who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, as well as those questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity." *[http://www.jasmyn.org/ Jacksonville Area Sexual Minority Youth Network (JASMYN)]: "a youth services and advocacy organization that focuses specifically on youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or uncertain about their sexual orientation (or youth who become labeled as such because of their behavior or situations." *[http://www.rosmy.org/ Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth]: "Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth (ROSMY) is a non-profit agency that provides support services for Richmond area gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth 20 years of age and younger." *[http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/scsm/ Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities (SCSM)] "The Commission's role is to effectively address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments." ::::::User:Hyacinth 22:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::Excuse me, but first, these groups appear to be your classical LGB groups who started adding a T only later, and keeping the "sexual minority" thing. (Many of those additions, it turned out, were purely cosmetical anyway, it is just at the moment something everybody does.) Second, why the aggressive tone? Until now your edits were neither aggressive nor so ... odd. I am rather surprised by your behaviour right now! And third, I admitted ignorance as to whether LGB people actually used it, not about the fact that I have never met a trans-person who did not feel that the lable was simply not applicable, to say the least. I also explained why it is used as an insult, because the label fires up the not exactly uncommon prejudice that trans* is somehow related to sexual preferences, or even that it is itself a sexual preference, which it is clearly not. Also, your statement that the "sexual" means both sex (the action) and gender is a triffle strange, there is a reason, you know, that people started using "gender", which was not used in the current sense until a few decades ago. :::::::I also do not feel that right now there is any use in further debate, not when you behave like that. I do sincerely hope, though, that it is just a temporary problem. -- User:AlexR 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::::Actually, "sexual minority" seems to be used after the inclusion of transgender and/or intersex people and issues in a group, such as SCSM, which "was formerly known as the Seattle Commission for Lesbians and Gays," but now, "address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle," and is named Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities. :::::::::Well, not being American I don't know, but either online or offline (thereby including US resitents) I have never met a transgender person nor an intersex one who does feel covered by "sexual minority" and most regard it as potentially insulting, and at best inaccurate. (Unless the happen to be ''also'' part of a sexual minority, like gay and lesbian trans- or intersex people. [AR] ::::::::"LGBT" is certainly offensive, probably insuling to some, such as intersex people or allies who feel intersex people are not transgendered and thus excluded, or people who feel transgendered people shouldn't be include, or people who hate acronyms. Simply because there are people who feel in similar ways about "sexual minority" does not then exclude its use, as it does not exclude the use of "LGBT". :::::::::LGBT is certainly not uncontroversial, but this article does nothing but explain what the acronym stands for. In fact, there are trans people who don't like the term because they don't want to have anything to do with LGB people, there are LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons, there are intersex people who want it to be LGBTI for obvious reasons (and LGBTI is included in the article, it is just rarer than LGBT, and now LGBTI redirects to LGBT), there are people (intersex and non-intersex) who argue that intersex alone is no reason to throw people in with LGBT people, there are intersex people who feel that the connection is offending, and I think that sentence became long enough. It is certainly expandable. [AR] ::::::::If you claim both that the term is rare and that you are ignorant of its possible use, I urge to to find out about it. I have provided examples of its use as self-identification and its use inclusive of transgender and intersex. :::::::::Yes, and I did not stop by to make a count of trans- and intersex people who find the term offensive or at the very least inaccurate, but until now my experience has been 100%. (And it was debated in various context with quite a few people, too.) [AR] ::::::::I do not find it "odd" or "a triffle strange" to assert the common knowledge and specific example that "sexual" is used to mean sexuality/intercourse/romance and gender/sex. :::::::::I do, because I know you are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, even if still many people are not. And frankly, I am also certain that you are aware that references about sex (the equiptment) are rather often confused with sex (the action). If now a term would attempt to throw these matters (sex, sex and gender) into one term, by using the one that practically causes the most problems to trans- and also sometimes intersex people - well, it would not be a good idea. [AR] ::::::::This debate does seem to be at a standstill. However, since this issue will continue to come up as long as people propose or insist upon the inclusion or exclusion of letters, groups, or terms (in and outside of wikipedia), a "sexual minority" article will eventually be written, and for both this, that, and future article I suggest that you find sources to represent your assertions. :::::::::I already have them, but if you need to check them, try mentioning in any trans or intersex group that you consider them a "sexual minority". I think that would very much clarify the matter for you. In some groups, I recomment taking a body guard with you, though. [AR] ::::::::Given that this article appears to need its own page for interarticle clarification purposes, given your objections, and the standstill, I withdraw my proposal to redirect this page. User:Hyacinth 00:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::That seems like a good idea. But when you start writing Sexual minorites do make sure it is NPOV and mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage. -- User:AlexR 04:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::It would seem then that this article should also "mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage," and not do "nothing but explain what the acronym stands for." User:Hyacinth 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::::Hm, but the article already does that. Not that it cannot be improved (which article can), but that is there already (and was, in a short from, before your edit, too). -- User:AlexR 13:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::::There a may be a problem of inclusion accuracy with the term too: consider a post-transition heterosexual transperson; their inclusion in being a "sexual minority" depends strongly on what one defines a "sexual minority" to be. If one takes ''sexual'' to describe sex, then that person is not part of a sexual minority. If one takes ''sexual'' to describe physiology, then that person may not be considered part of a sexual minority, but intersexed people would be. If one uses the former definition of the act to determine sexual minority, then the inclusion of trans* and intersexed people of whatever operative becomes problematic for reasons already outlined by Alex above. User:Dysprosia 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Transgender or Transgendered? == This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- User:SamuelWantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC) :There's some debate over that, but as far as I can see, transgender was originaly coined as both noun and adjective, same as with transsexual. (Ever heard "transsexual''ed''"? Me neither.) Transgender''ed'' has become more common only in the past few years, and is still behind on Google count. I personally can't stand it ;-) User:AlexR 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC) ::GLAAD says in its [http://glaad.org/media/guide/transfocus.php media guide] 'The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word.' and I agree. I researched this and asked around years ago and found "transgender" to be the correct spelling. User:Tdempsey 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ''Sexual'' is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a ''transsexual person''. ''Gender'' is a noun (see [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gender Merriam-Webster], therefore a person should be a ''transgendered person''. Adding ''-ed'' gives us an adjective. If the common usage in the US is to drop the ''-ed'', it wouldn't surprise me. It's kind of like ''iced tea'' becoming ''ice tea'' in the US. If it's wrong grammatically (and I may be mistaken here, feel free to challenge my logic), should we just go with the common (US) usage? The UK has, I believe, a sizeable T community. What is the common usage there? User:Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LGBT
LGBT (or GLBT, BGLT, etc.) is an acronym used as a collective term to refer to lesbian, gay men, bisexual and transgender people. Sexology Sexuality Human societies gd:Gnethan:LCDT
LGBT
== Categories as acronyms? == Categories shouldn't be acronyms, please fix this. User:Oberiko 12:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) :I think that categories like this maybe should be exceptions - "LGBT" is very commonly used, and the alternative, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered" is pretty long. -User:Sethmahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) * I agreek with Oberiko. The acronym may be common in the US, but it is entirely unclear where I come from. Find a suitable euphemism, I guess? User:Radiant! 09:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) **That's interesting - where do you come from, Radiant!? What suitable euphemism might you suggest? 'Lesbigay' has been tried, with little success (it also leaves out trans people), 'queer' has been tried, but many people find that offensive, 'homosexual' is offensive to many (and leaves out trans people). The best solution we've been able to come up with is to use LGBT as the category name, and then have an explanation on the category page. Any other options you can think of to throw out? -User:Sethmahoney 20:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) == Cleanup == I'm thinking this category needs some cleanup, but I don't want to make a unilateral reorganization. Here's the deal: we have :Category:LGBT, which seems to be used for a lot of LGBT, including specifically gay and lesbian, topics, and also have :Category:Homosexuality, which I would rather (personally) only see used for articles about groups or events that would be sympathetic toward a clinical view of gay and lesbian sexuality (such as the Homosexuality and ... articles, or articles on the "treatment" of homosexuality), we have :Category:Gay-related topics, :Category:Lesbian-related topics, and :Category:Bisexual-related topics, but rarely are articles exclusive to one of these topics. We also have :Category:LGBT civil rights which, after a helpful note and some thinking I'm thinking maybe should be changed to :Category:LGBT rights (to include both civil and, more broadly, human rights, and thus include gay history as well as current gay issues). So here's what I propose: move articles from Gay-, Lesbian-, and Bisexual-related topics to :Category:LGBT, move all articles specifically dealing with a pathological view of homosexuality and all articles titled "Homosexuality and ..." to :Category:Homosexuality, and change :Category:LGBT civil rights to :Category:LGBT rights. -User:Sethmahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) :Your categorization scheme seems to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned, which does not seem advisable. User:Hyacinth 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::How does my proposal seem to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned? -User:Sethmahoney 04:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) Is there any more thought or interest in cleaning up the LGBT sections and categories including pulling the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender sections together. Frankly, I can see a separate gay wiki but would like to see the gay information on this great site more organized. -- User:Tdempsey 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Pat Robertson and Restructuring== Why did you classify Pat Robertson under homosexuality, except maybe to piss him off? I mean, that's not the worst goal in the world, but it seems unencyclopedic. -- User:Jmabel 18:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've been putting articles that relate to a specifically clinical view of homosexuality and those that deal with opinions on and views regarding homosexuality (along with the people who express them) in :Category:Homosexuality (which would otherwise be pretty much redundant with :Category:LGBT), including those on people who have public views opposing GLB issues and people. I've put a few other people in the category, including Laura Schlessinger and Fred Phelps as well. I've been thinking for a while that they will need their own category, but :Category:People opposed to homosexuality is all I can think of, and it sounds absurd to me (how can you be ''opposed'' to homosexuality?), so it hasn't happened yet. -User:Sethmahoney 18:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Let's keep dialog on one page; I'll temporarily add this to my watchlist. I have a feeling we'll want to copy this somewhere when we are done. I'm not sure if :Category:People opposed to homosexuality is exactly the right title, but something like that is needed, or :Category:Homosexuality is going to get very confusing: especially as to whom it applies to. We do have a :Category:Anti-gay rights legislation, which is not exactly on the mark, but maybe something else under its parent :Category:LGBT civil rights? Or under the more open-ended :Category:Gay-related topics? In any case: #We may want a categorization hierarchy distinguishing: ##People who say homosexuality is sinful. ##People who advocate criminalization or civil penalties for homosexual behavior. ##People who advocate or perpetrate anti-gay violence. #The mere fact that someone holds an opinion (and even has expressed it) does not seem to me to be adequate reason for inclusion in the category. I the Pat Robertson article, we quote one homophobic remark. We don't really discuss his views on homosexuality beyond that. Is this a useful categorization under the circumstances? -- User:Jmabel 19:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) :I'm all for breaking up :Category:Homosexuality and possibly removing it completely. As I said on the :Category:LGBT talk page, I'm trying to press for (or just do it myself) a restructuring of the LGBT categories, as they're a mess right now. I also think that :Category:Gay-related topics needs to be broken up and deleted, as it is pretty vague and pretty much redundant with :Category:LGBT (though I would be in favor of creating a :Category:LGB or something similar to deal with those articles that exclusively talk about issues of sexuality and not transgender). As far as your categorization scheme goes, those people who advocate the criminalization of homosexual behavior are often people sho say it is sinful, so there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two categories, suggesting to me that they should be merged into one, and the same with people who advocate anti-gay violence and people who advocate criminalization. Really, what we're talking about is two categories: :Category:Homophobia and :Category:Homophobes (and possibly :Category:People who are against homosexuality for religious reasons), but of course we can't call it that because it would be POV. As far as Pat Robertson goes, my reasoning was that his comment was extremely homophobic, extremely public, extremely opportunistic (using 9-11 to attack gay people), and very obviously representative of his views on homosexuality. He has also made himself an icon of the anti-gay-rights movement. To me, this justifies his inclusion. Also, I was thinking of copying all of this to the talk page for :Category:LGBT if you don't object. -User:Sethmahoney 19:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) :Yes, please do copy it or move it, but can we do one more back-and-forth here first? #I'm glad someone is thinking about this, but now that the current categories have been used enough to be suggestive of the problems, you might want to stop actively place articles into categories likely to be reworked soon. #::Agreed. #Yes, a category :Category:Homophobia would be very controversial, and a :Category:Homophobes more so. We already have :Category:LGBT civil rights where that's relevant: it can include both those who support and those who oppose civil rights for LBGT people. We could easily add a :Category:religious views of LGBT and use it similarly. #::I agree that's a good place to put them, but what do we call them? :Category:Supporters of LGBT civil rights and :Category:Opponents of LGBT civil rights? Something like that is pretty long, and I don't think a lot of people who would fit into the latter category would not agree that they actually ''oppose'' gay rights, but that some other concern supercedes any particular gay rights issue, like their conception of family or marriage, their religion, or whatever. Actually, I just got an idea. I'm going to do a little poking through CBN et al's web sites and see what they call themselves. -User:Sethmahoney 22:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) -- User:Jmabel 21:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Okay, that idea wasn't too fruitful. Of course Pat Roberston and the like aren't going to refer to themselves in the third person, so I'm not going to get anything useful there. "Opponents of gay rights", though, seems to be a fairly common term in the US media, though, so that might actually work. -User:Sethmahoney 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) I don't think everyone is going to be cleanly a "supporter" or an "opponent" anyway; for example there are gay people who are pretty appalling on their attitude toward transsexuals. Subordinate to :Category:LGBT civil rights we already have :Category:LGBT rights activists, so what we call that side is easy, the category is already there. I wouldn't object others who have significant stands on the issue of LGBT civil rights being classified for now directly in :Category:LGBT civil rights until we can come up with a name for the subcategory: it's certainly a lot more appropriate than :Category:Homosexuality. I still think that the religious issue and the rights issue are separate. Many (although not all) who come at this from a religious perspective are not neatly "supporters" or "opponents". I'd advocate a category :Category:religious views of LGBT and after we have, say, 20 people in it, it's time to see whether it needs further subcategories. That's probably about it from me on this. Feel free to move the discussion to :Category:LGBT, I'll put that on my watchlist (and drop your user page). Ping me if you want me back in the loop about something ''not'' on :Category:LGBT. -- User:Jmabel 23:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) == Tidying up == So the LBGT, gay, homosexual, sexology, and sexuality categories are getting pretty messy. I'm going to try making some logical subcategories here, having to do with religion, festivals, civil rights, etc. Feel free to join in or comment. -- User:Beland 05:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Reclassification == So I think I'd like to reclassify everything under "Category:Homosexuality", "Category:Gay-related topics", "Category:Lesbian-related topics", and "Category:Bisexual-related topics" and delete these categories, which seem like a bunch of twisty categories, all alike. I'd instead create "Category:Sexual orientation and science", "Category:Sexual orienation and society", "Category:Gay and lesbian culture", "Category:LGBT symbols", and "Category:Sexual orientation and identity". Thoughts? -- User:Beland 14:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I thought they were a twisty bunch of categories each slightly different. No actual opinion, but I take that you, like me, are ''not'' one of the younger Wikipedians. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) ::I like "sexual orientation" rather than "homosexuality" - this seems to be the way all the related articles are headed anyway. -User:Sethmahoney 00:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) :::I like it. User:Hyacinth 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :OK, cool. I'll proceed at my leisure. (I don't know if you mean young to Wikipedia, which I have been active at for less than a year, or new to the universe, which I have been participating in for 26 years or so. But enough about me...) -- User:Beland 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I was wrong. "...bunch of twisty categories, all alike..." had me guessing you were old enough to have been using computers befor the days of visual operating systems. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) :::I remember when Windows first came out, but not X. 8) -- User:Beland 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure the new categories are any clearer than the old. It seems like all the topics are being simultaneously lumped into three or four categories each, and I'm not really clear what the difference between the categories is supposed to be. Categorizing should make things clearer, and I don't think that's being accomplished at the moment. --User:Azkar 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Being in multiple categories is not inherently a bad sign. Can you indicate where it seems to be a problem? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 18:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) :::Off the top of my head .. fag (pejorative) was recently placed into :Category:Sexual orientation and identity, :Category:Gay and lesbian culture, and :Category:Sexual orientation and society. Personally, I don't really see the term fitting neatly into any of these categories. As well, the categories themselves aren't very self-intuitive. Gay and lesbian culture is relatively self-explanatory (presumably, articles relating to things specific to the gay community), but the other two are more vague in what they're meant to deal with. --User:Azkar 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::I can follow its being a member of any of these categories, considering that the term is used offensively from outside and non-offensively within the gay community in much the same way that the word 'nigger' is used. Maybe we should pause and sit down and think about where we all want this categorizational scheme to go. Myself, I think the three major categories work fairly well, and would maybe like to see a collection of subcats to help organize them. I can see, though, that separating trans culture from gay and lesbian culture is sometimes difficult, and may be offensive to some. How would the rest of you like to see the categories play out? -User:Sethmahoney 21:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) :::::Sometimes lumping trans people with LGB people can also be offensive. Other times, it's just not applicable. I must admit that I've probably made inconsistent decisions on that score, but I thought I'd leave it up to people more familiar with trans issues to do any necessary cleanup. -- User:Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::You're right. There's a really great contributor, AlexR, who has written and edited a lot of trans articles. Maybe we should seek some advice. -User:Sethmahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) I also noticed that the vocabulary terms were a weak point in the new scheme. I wanted to create a new category just for slang terms, including offensive ones. Or maybe one just for offensive terms. "LGBT argot" is supposed to be only for terms that mostly only "in-group" people are supposed to use and understand. Ironically, I don't think most people know what "argot" means, either. I certainly didn't until I came across this category. Some of the terms are also "identity" terms, which is why they ended up in "Sexual orientation and identity". All of the "in" vocabulary terms could also be considered part of the culture, I guess, which is why some words ended up there. I guess this just shows why there should be a clear "words" category, perhaps a subcategory of culture, etc., and argot a subcategory of that? -- User:Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :To further confuse the issue, many in-words for the gay community are also pejoratives when used by non-members, so they should also go in "Sexual orientation and society". Maybe we should create a linguistic category, for all words used within and outside the community, and then subdivide it as appropriate (and if needed). -User:Sethmahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) I have created :Category:LGBT terms. Help is needed to move or add the appropriate articles to it. -- User:Beland 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Do you think articles such as gay and lesbian should be moved from the main :Category:LGBT, to :Category:LGBT terms? The articles encompass a lot more than just terminology, of course, but I think inclusion in :Category:Sexual orientation and identity probably covers those bases. I'm just thinking out loud, here. I was going to do some categorization, but had difficulty making many concrete decisions (I did move queer) --User:Azkar 04:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==:Category:Gay travel destinations== I had set up a new category on WIkipedia yesterday— Category:Gay travel destinations— which had sparked a bit of discussion and eventually listing on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It would be nice to be certain that there is adequate queer/gay/homosexual/GLBT discussion on this subject. Please consider Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Gay_travel_destinations. Best regards. w:en:User:Sfdan 07:09, 29 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==LGBT is not "most common== It is Wikipedia policy to call things by THEIR MOST COMMON NAME. LGBT is not "most common". I'm American and have never seen the term til now (and NEVER EVER heard the term). It needs to be replaced with something not cryptic. Anything in the dictionary in common usage that roughly identifies the category will do. Non-heterosexual, Sexual identity, LGBT (aka Non-heterosexual),Sexuality and so forth. But this cryptic LGBT has got to go. User:4.250.177.11 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Since you are weighing in anonymously, I'm not sure how heavily to count that. For what ever it's worth, I'm a 50-year-old straight guy, and the term is completely familiar to me, has been for at least a decade. And I don't know a more common term with the same breadth. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm Canadian, and I've seen the term used extensively in both American and Canadian media (LGBT-oriented, as well as mainstream). Like Jmabel, I can't think of any other term that's more widely used and recognized (in North America, at least), that covers the same range, and that remains neutral. --User:Azkar 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I have seen LGBT more lately than GLBT and I believe it is an issue of the time we live in. I personally wish we pick one and stick with it. I vote for the current LGBT. There is also a search on Google and Yahoo! showing LGBT is more common than GBLT under Talk:LGBT. -- User:Tdempsey 05:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lgbt
I think this should include straight, possibly then excluding heteronormativity. User:Hyacinth 05:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) I found this box in Heteronormativity where already an edit war about another box was going on, and well, putting in this box didn't help. (This page has had edit wars for weeks now).
Also, I doubt its use, especially since the links seem to be choosen very arbitraily. Why are Transsexual, Transgender, Intersexual and Heteronormativity all linked seperately, but not the much more useful List of transgender-related topics. Besides, the later has many of the links in the box in it; and is in the links at the bottom of heteronormativity (Probably others as well).
There seems to be no consens of those boxes anywhere, either, they just turned up recently and are thrown into articles. What is wrong with a simple link? And if it has to be a box, shouldn't it link to a page about it? I could not find this one, had to go to #wikipedia to find it.
I think there should be some more debate about this box, and those boxes in general, before they are put to such a wide use. -- User:AlexR 12:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==TfD'd== This template was listed for deletion on WP:TFD. The decision was to delete this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005 for more information. -User:Frazzydee|User talk:Frazzydee 17:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
L
LA | LB | LC | LD | LE | LF | LG | LH | LI | LJ | LK | LM | LN | LO | LP | LR | LS | LT | LU | LW | LX | LY | LZ |Words begining with LGBT:
LGBT
LGBT
LGBT
LGBT
Lgbt
LGBT-related_films
LGBT-stub
LGBTA
LGBTI
LGBTIQ
LGBTQ
Lgbtq
LGBT_actors
LGBT_argot
LGBT_art
LGBT_artists
LGBT_artists
LGBT_athletes
LGBT_athletes
LGBT_Characters_in_The_Star_Trek_Universe
LGBT_Characters_in_The_Star_Trek_Universe
LGBT_civil_rights
LGBT_civil_rights_timeline
LGBT_culture
LGBT_culture
LGBT_events
LGBT_forums
LGBT_history
LGBT_history
LGBT_identities
LGBT_issues_and_religion
LGBT_literature
LGBT_literature
LGBT_literature
LGBT_media
LGBT_musicians
LGBT_mythology
LGBT_noticeboard
LGBT_noticeboard
LGBT_notice_board
LGBT_notice_board
LGBT_notice_board/Archive_1
LGBT_organizations
LGBT_people_from_Canada
LGBT_politicians
LGBT_rights
LGBT_rights_activists
LGBT_Rights_Legislation
LGBT_rights_legislation_in_the_United_States
LGBT_rights_opposition
LGBT_rights_opposition
LGBT_rights_organizations
LGBT_stubs
LGBT_Student_Movement
LGBT_symbols
LGBT_television_series
LGBT_terms
LGBT_writers
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
