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.

Sparse documentation page at Template:LGBT-footer/doc. Transcluded here in the "noinclude" tags. — coelacan — 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why the bisexual section is highlighted like it is? -Gay15boy (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it was doing that but I've fixed it. It's supposed to be a highlighting section break so that each "?sexuality" section is seperated by that highlight. It apparently wasn't working. -- ALLSTARecho 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was eyeing up the "Rights" section and thinking that perhaps that should be titled "Laws" instead. My reasoning is that not all items listed are rights but they do deal with laws, like adoption. Thoughts? ZueJay (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed..... I split off a new section called "Attitudes" and some stuff into there. (LGBT rights opposition could go in either Law or Attitudes, i stuck it in Attitudes for now unless someone wants to change it). -- User0529 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex relationships are important to the LGBT template. However, the only mention is under legal issues as civil unions and same-sex marriages. Same-sex relationships are more than just a legal contract. They happen regardless of the legal status in the country. Besides legal issues, the only other place that it is mentioned is in the homosexuality article under sexual orientation. Homosexuality includes a lot more than someone's sexual orientation, but also their sexual identity and the relationships they have with other people. This can happen regardless of sexual orientation. I do not think it is accurate to place it in sexual orientation, because laws and religious persecution against homosexuality affects bisexual people as well as homosexual people. There is a separate article for people with a homosexual orientation that is strictly about sexual orientation and does not involve same-sex relationships or bisexual people. However, it is pertinent to this template and should be placed somewhere. Thoughts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "LGBT community and culture" might be a good spot. Banjeboi 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda minor, but I'd like to change the picture to this, it is wayyyyyy better: [1] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I made a bold edit and changed the picture, it looks much better now, hope everyone will agree! Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly do - it's a great picture.217.43.124.229 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsensical. To the question "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?" 86% of Swedes say yes. Among people who are 18-39 years old, this support reaches to 91% [2]. Thats hardly intolerance. This isnt NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should change history to "History and Societal attitudes"? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR "LGBT community/culture and Societal Attitudes"? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some churches and religions support LGBT rights, in whole or in part, therefore religious views should NOT be under Discrimination. Definitionally I'm not sure "rights opposition" purely qualifies either... opposition to certain rights expansions is not by itself discrimination, assuming right not being violated in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotel (talk • contribs)

I've left a notice at WikiProject LGBT studies regarding this interesting point you have raised. I did so because not many people watch these template talk pages. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the "History and Society" section then. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues - Religious discrimination against LGBT people and Religious opposition to LGBT human rights. They are different, one is discrimatory practice, the other is a rationale that can be used for discriminatory practice. We don't appear to have a category for human rights into LGBT human rights can fit, and which Religious opposition to LGBT human rights would be located. The practicality of religious discrimination would still need to be under discrimination. Mish (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views which are religiously motivated can be discriminatory; there's nothing special about religion that makes it immune from causing discriminatory behaviour, and there's nothing unique about religious teachings that make them non-discriminatory regardless of the positions they advocate. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, I've just posted this to the Category:homophobia discussion, and it provides quite a useful definition for there, and addresses this question as well, because religious opposition of LGBT rights is specifically included:

• A. Homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism.
• B. Homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.

Parliament Resolution 18 January 2006, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0018 Mish (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely should be in sexual identity rather than orientation section. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sex template. Its the LGBT template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BDSM and LGBT cultures are certainly intwined so I'm not opposed to including it here. This issue I di have is that BDSM is not a sexual orientation so even the culture section would be better. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"BDSM and LGBT cultures are certainly intwined" Source? Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queer studies is full of BDSM (and polyamory is discussed also). Look at the listings of GLQ or Sexualities, or the topics covered in Queer conferences and seminars. The Project page is contradictory. The lede includes Queer studies as well as LGBT, yet further down the coverage is restricted to LGBT issues alone. So, somebody needs to decide which part of the project is wrong - that the LGBT studies project is also about Queer studies, or that a project that includes Queer studies excludes aspects of Queer studies that do not relate to LGBT. I have no problem with people limiting the LGBT studies project to LGBT issues, although that is a particular POV, but if it does so, it should make it clear that it is not also a Queer studies project. as that is misleading, especially in the lede. Queer studies covers a lot of things that may be peripheral to many in the LGBT community - but like bareback riding, BDSM and polyamory is an aspect of some LGBT experience. Mish (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates: {{LGBT}} (this template), sidebar version: {{LGBT sidebar}}

There is some overlap between LGBT and Queer studies, but some other areas which do not make much sense. Example: polyamory has been added and removed at least twice to this template. While polyamory may be a part of queer studies, it is not an LGBT-specific topic and looks strange in a mainly-LGBT template. Also BDSM, which is a queer studies topic, but not an LGBT-specific topic. Having a separate queer studies template would also allow more room to expand on other queer studies topics which would look odd lumped in with the LGBT topics, instead of diluting {{LGBT}}/{{LGBT sidebar}} into every sexual practice or topic under the sun which might be viewed as odd or strange by "straight" society. thoughts? Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sounds like a strange move (because it's making a distinction that I don't think exists in the real world), but I do see your point. Why is a topic like polyamory in there in the first place? It's certainly not limited to LGBT or queer communities, and I dare say warrants its own template. Rebecca (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]