LGBTQ+ studies Template‑class

This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. (archive entry) Courtland 02:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why how you get off is an acceptable definition of who you are as a human being. Really, does it matter?--Mijeff (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add gayelleNewAtThis (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add that. I saw the article on your page, and can tell you right now that it's not notable. For one, you cite urban dictionary. Bad source right there. Also, you cite a Neology.(see WP:NEO.)

Zoophilia is linked to directly on this template, beside paraphilia. Yet the paraphilia article includes mention of zoophilia as a paraphilia:

Under Paraphilia NOS, the DSM mentions.. zoophilia (animals)

Why does it receive this distinction when other paraphilias are not directly linked to? Shouldn't it be removed, or if not, the other prominent paraphilias also linked to directly? The implication here is that zoophilia, referenced as a paraphilia, is included within 'sexual orientation'. This is a contested idea, similar to pedophilia, another paraphilia, also being contested as being viewed as an orientation. To conclude positively on this association in regard to one paraphilia and not another is probably a bit of a bias in the presentation, even if an unintended one. Tyciol (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia's involves animals, which paraphilia does not, generally, denounce. paraphilia is generally connected with objects, non-living.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual orientations on this list end in sexuality rather than sexual. Is that right? For example, I would say a gay person had a homosexual orientation, not a homosexuality orientation. If I understand right, sexuality includes more than just a sexual orientation, but also sexual behavior. This causes problems when writing the different articles. For example, on the homosexuality page, the intro reads "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." Wouldn't it be clearer just to have pages and links to sexual orientations, not sexualities? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I purpose to list the various sexual orientations as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual instead of a heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality orientation. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here, either one works for me. --User0529 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template includes a number of unusual terms that only a few writers argue are "orientations" while most psychologists would class them as paraphilias, and the common-usage understanding of "orientation" refers only to gender of attraction. Since you've done this for some terms, it's also POV to exclude certain other paraphilias that their advocates argue are really "orientations." In general, the prominent place the template has in high-traffic articles like homosexuality gives undue weight to fringe ideas.

And it's completely silly to have the joke term "pomosexual" on there.

The fix I propose is to list only those orientations widely accepted as being orientations in common usage -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. A general link to sexual orientation and paraphilia can then direct readers to a discussion of various ways orientation is defined by various writers, and whether more unusual terms ought also to be considered under this category.

Dybryd (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on cleaning it up... though who knows how long before the zoosexuality people want to reclaim their status lol. I tightened up the formatting some and replaced the Homosexuality and transgender item (since it only related to homosexual orientation) with Third sex and Two-spirit (under the non-westernized concepts section) and Transgender under see also. --User0529 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting, your case is not logical and based on personal opinion. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, not what some doctor says, you have no right to say what is a sexual orientation or not. I changed it from "Classifications" to "Sexual orientation identities" so all terms can fit snug in this category without any conflict.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia can meaningfully define anything according to personal choice -- we must use the published consensus. Dybryd (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the content is disputed, I think explicit sourcing may be a good idea. However, are references normally put in a template? It seems unsightly. Could they be added invisibly, commented out -- is that legit? Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what to call the first section is going to be that much of a debate, we could just remove the heading for it, or <!-- --> comment it out. (Personally I can see both sides of the debate, as it is an identity that a person self-identifies as, and it also is used as a classification that some people project onto others (example: List of LGBT people categorizing ancient peoples as homosexual or bisexual when such classifications did not exist before the 19th century CE) User0529 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Template:Sexual Identities which is quite good, and more like the all-inclusive list that Cooljuno411 seems to be looking for.

Whether to define a given form of sex as an "orientation" is a highly contentious question in some cases, one that advocates on each side have strong contrary opinions about. That being the case, it's still more important to stick close to academic consensus to avoid "taking a side" in these debates.

However, it's true that I gave no source for reducing the list of orientations to the "big three" and there really ought to be one, given that the question is controversial. But as I said -- I don't know how to give sources in a template. Any advice on this?

Dybryd (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, methinks it might be overkill to put citations in a navigation template though. You could <!-- include a hidden citation for future editors to discourage additions--> maybe. ?? I think asexual has place in the list, but the others (zoosexuality, autosexuality) seem more questionable User0529 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our own opinions about what has a place shouldn't matter. However, I've read a bit about asexuality, and many people who identify as asexual also identify as gay, straight, or bi -- they just seek purely affectionate rather than sexual relationships with the gender(s) they desire. Others may consider it an orientation -- I haven't read enough to know. But, again, it's academic consensus we have to go by.

I asked about this at the Help desk, and the reply was that sourcing for templates is usually just done by referring to the sources of the articles included in the template, rather than being explicitly included in the template in any way.

Dybryd (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Citations can go on the talk page, but do not belong in the template. What is the main audience for this template? Trying to make a template fot for all things will cause problems. Is it for science, biology and includes other animals than humans? Or is it primarily for human anthropology, sexuality or sociology? The list has included asexuality for some time without issues, why is there an impetus to change that now? On the other hand, pomosexuality doesn;t seem to have any support for inclusion beyound the person who put it there. If you asked the average girl on the street, she would probably list homsexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. I would bet not one in a hundred would list zoosexuality, autosexuality or pomosexuality as a sexual orientation. Probably only some small percentage would list asexuality. Why not consider making the list realistic and pragmatic, rather than inclusive of all terms that could possibly be considered as a form of sexual orientation. I suggest keeping it simple with the big three, and possibly asexuality. Atom (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article asexuality says it is "considered by some to be an orientation" and gives a link to a magazine article which describes the personal feeling of some asexuals that asexuality is their orientation. No more academic background is given.

I won't kick and scream if the consensus is to include it, but I'd really like to find a neutral, authoritative list. There are many forms of sex that their advocates like to describe as an "orientation" as a politically legitimizing strategy.

Dybryd (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big three (with or without Asexuality) would seem to be neutral for me. I think asexuality has more place in the template than the other non-big-3-classifications (such as auto- and zoo-), but like Dybryd, I won't kick or scream over its inclusion (or lack thereof). User0529 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed paraphilia. I'm actually the one who inserted that -- I did it because for many of these specific cases of unusual forms of sex that some want to call orientations (like zoosexuality), others want to call them paraphilias. Basically, an ideological conflict between the wish to legitimize and the wish to pathologize. So I think paraphilia is perfect to go under "alternative concepts" because it's a different way of conceptualizing some of the same things. Dybryd (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think asexuality should be included. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have removed the template from all the pages, esp. the "big three", while discuss this. Aleta ^Sing 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so hoping it would draw the editors of the relevant articles to the discussion. And, in general, I'm strongly in favor of getting disputed content out of article space until the dispute is resolved. Better to be temporarily skimpy on content than to have mistakes or bias turning up in the search results of folks innocently doing research. Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Paraphilia back into See also: under the orientations. I agree w/ your reasoning, just was trying to thin out the miscelaneous some. Problem with putting paraphilia with the other alt concepts is they are all gender-based constructs (Non-westernized male.. refers to male sexuality within gender-based societies of the non-west, Third sex is what transgender and effeminate (female-gendered) homosexuals are called in some places like India, etc) User0529 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

readded pomosexual to "see also", hello it is a RELATED TOPIC, hence in the SEE ALSO--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it comes down to [WP:Verify|verifiablity]]. Zoosexuality, autosexuality, and paraphiliac identities would be wholly appropriate on a template for sexual identities (ie. Template:Sexual Identities), but I don't think there are any reputable sources citing an "is a" relationship between zoosexuality and sexual orientation. Likewise, I think a "see also: paraphilia" is inappropriate. This suggests a linkage with sexual orientation that is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Queerudite (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]