Mastodon
LinkedIn
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit | This page in a nutshell: It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing guidelines to discipline editors for behavior indicative of queerphobia. This essay lays out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them. |
Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBT views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by the WP:NPOV policy. Expressions of homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia, transphobia, arophobia, acephobia, or general queerphobia are not welcome here. They disrupt the encyclopedia by promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBT editors.
The essay WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE lays out why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia and results in blocking and banning; others such as Wikipedia:No racists, Wikipedia:No Nazis, and Wikipedia:No Confederates lay out more specific guidelines for those forms of bigotry; this essay specifically serves to outline common anti-LGBT beliefs, disruptive manifestations of them, and the systems of recourse on English Wikipedia.
Discussions have raged on for decades about how Wikipedia should write about LGBT people and topics. Gender and sexuality (WP:GENSEX) are currently considered a contentious topic (formerly "discretionary sanctions"), meaning that editors contributing to articles and discussions about these topics must strictly follow Wikipedia's behavioral and editorial guidelines. MOS:GENDERID and the supplementary essay MOS:GIDINFO contain the most up-to-date guidelines for writing about transgender people on Wikipedia.
Anti-LGBT editors frequently disrupt Wikipedia by promoting misinformation or pushing fringe viewpoints (particularly dangerous in medical articles), and create an unwelcoming environment for other editors. Editors who are unable to set aside their beliefs about the LGBT community when editing or who seek to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints may be restricted from editing.
This essay outlines common queerphobic beliefs, popular misinformation about the LGBT community, and groups known to spread and support it, so that administrators and editors may recognize them, address them, and show queerphobes the door.
This essay and sister essays such as WP:NORACISTS, WP:NOCONFED, and WP:NONAZIS face a common criticism: "we should sanction editors for their behaviors, not their beliefs".
This is not an unfair argument so it bears exploration. The essay Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive addresses the issue like this (emphasis added):
| “ | So bigots can edit here? Sure, if they edit without engaging in any hate speech or hateful conduct (which includes self-identification with hate movements). While this will be impossible for many bigots, presumably some number do manage this, people who write articles about botany without letting on that they think the Holocaust was a hoax, or fix lots of typos and never mention that they think it was a mistake to let women vote. Wikipedia policy does not concern itself with people's private views. The disruption caused by hateful conduct lies in the expression, not the belief.
The flip side of this is true too: If someone uses a bunch of racial slurs because they think it's funny, or posts an edgy statement about gay people on their userpage as a "social experiment", they are engaged in disruptive editing, even if they don't personally harbor hateful views. |
” |
This essay is based on that underlying principle, put succinctly as "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". If you believe LGBT people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy, but practice civility, never bring it up, and solely contribute to articles about entomology and highways, you have nothing to worry about and your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed. This essay isn't about you. If you try to change the first sentence of LGBTtoAll LGBT people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy...—or insist on talk pages that this is the case and Wikipedia needs to take your POV seriously—that is a behavioral issue and the focus of this essay.
 | This is an essay, not a content or behavioural guideline. This section provides a working definition of queerphobia by way of editing behaviors and POVs widely considered disruptive, hateful, insulting, or FRINGE. Their inclusion here alone is not necessarily an accusation of bigotry, a restriction on editing, or a consensus-backed judgement on due weight. |
Queerphobia is the fear, hatred, or dislike of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer people. Queerphobes commonly believe that LGBT people and identities are deviant, and should be denied rights and protections.
Frequent anti-LGBT narratives include:
Overlapping with the narratives and beliefs above are more medically-related pseudoscientific/unevidenced proposals and typologies. The guideline WP:FRINGE addresses how to handle these in articles (we don't include them in articles on the broader topic, but if notable we can discuss them in their own articles while making clear they're fringe).
Queerphobic editors on Wikipedia frequently think:
These beliefs may manifest in various ways that damage the encyclopedia. Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible ones.
Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as -istor-phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked.
Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.
You should always assume good faith and exercise civility. However, our social policies are not a suicide pact; we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance.
For a new editor, understand that they are likely ignorant of Wikipedia systems and standards. Point them toward relevant guidelines and policies. If they are editing material related to gender identification, make them aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions via the {{Contentious topics/alert/first|gg}}or{{Contentious topics/alert|gg}} templates. If they are arguing against the guidelines, make it clear that you can't change the guidelines in an article discussion and direct them toward where such discussions can take place.
If an editor consistently and chronically disrupts the encyclopedia by promoting queerphobic opinions/viewpoints, you should collect relevant diffs and report them. If an editor was already made aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions, then you can request enforcement at WP:AE. Otherwise, request administrator attention at WP:ANI.
Editors brazenly vandalizing articles or using slurs may be immediately blocked. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for such behavior. If an edit is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, it may be subject to revision deletion. If an edit breaches someone's privacy, you should request Oversight.
It can be very tempting, especially in article talk pages, to debate or rebut anti-LGBT talking points on their own merits. However, remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Stick to source-based and policy-based discussions which serve to improve articles. If a conversation is blatantly unconstructive or off-topic, then consider collapsing, refactoring, or moving it so that you and other editors don't waste others' time.
As Jane Ward notes in Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, what’s interesting about many of these claims is how transparent their speakers are with their political motivations. “Such statements,” she writes, “infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy.” People who challenge the Born This Way narrative are often cast as homophobic, and their thinking is considered backward – even if they are themselves gay.—BBC, 2016.
If in the past the scientific interest revolved around the question of “nature or nurture,” the current theories of sexology, which are placed in a sociological, biological, psychological, and social perspective, recognize the multifactorial nature of sexual orientation.—Sexuality and Sexual Orientation in the Twenty-First Century. A far cry from "there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced". TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The essay seems to call for disallowing anyone to express something that is now widely recognised in academia: that there's a social and personal component to sexual orientation.". I don’t see anything in the essay saying that, and the social and personal component you pointed to in the paper is not the one we are discussing. Not sure if you are intentionally misreading and misunderstanding or if this is on purpose to push a POV as others have said. Maybe take a step back and review the recent literature. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some polls and studies of heterosexual people's attributions for homosexuality, it has been demonstrated that when individuals believe that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice, their attitudes toward gay men and lesbians tend to be more negative, whereas more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are associated with attributing homosexuality to something people are “born with”.I assumed this is the point you were trying to make: that implying homosexuality can be a choice is akin to wanting to force gay people "back in the closet". If this isn't what you meant, I apologise.
there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influencedand implied that any assertion otherwise is "fringe". The essay seeks to smear as "queerphobic" and thus disallow this, or at least the more specific assertion that being LGBT can be a choice (at least for some people). But the scientific evidence does not support this claim. My opposition is to this part of the essay. I hope I'm being clear. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One major point of disagreement between Sartre and Genet concerned Genet’s homosexuality. Sartre interpreted it as part of Genet’s creative response to being labelled a pariah — thus, a free choice of outsiderhood and contrariness. Instead, for Genet, it was a given fact, like having green or brown eyes. He argued this point with Sartre, but Sartre was adamant. In Saint Genet he even had the effrontery to comment, of Genet’s more essentialist opinion, 'we cannot follow him in this'. Many people now favour Genet’s view over Sartre’s, considering that regardless of other factors that may enter the mix, some of us simply are gay, or at least have a strong propensity in that direction. Sartre seemed to feel that, if we do not completely choose our sexuality, we are not free.). And/or perhaps they themselves are homosexual, and want to affirm their own freedom, refusing to give into the narrative of preset, unchanging humans born to be a certain way; as Brandon Ambrosino wrote in the aforementioned BBC article:
I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love.
"Preset, unchanging humans born a certain way"I've seen you bring this up a few times, with a very obvious flaw (I will charitably assume you are not intentionally trying to be intellectually dishonest). Supporting "nurture" in the nature v. nurture argument is not the same as saying being LGBT is a conscious choice. As I said, noting that society can play a factor in someone's gender ID in no way logically justifies saying "trans people choose to be that way", because just like genetics it's not like people have much conscious choice in the society that they grow up in either. In other words, even if "gender = nurture" is not fringe, "being LGBT is a conscious choice" very much is.
Sexual orientation and attraction is inherent and while some amount of specifics of attraction might be socially determined, such as liking larger or smaller body types, there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced. There is literally decades of scientific research showcasing this.. And this isn't about anyone "going around telling other editors they are LGBT by personal choice", it's about someone putting generic opinions on one's own user page. It's hardly a "well-known queerphobic trope", as something accepted by LGBT people themselves now and even in the past; nevermind that "trope" usually implies something is false, which this isn't established to be. At last, one can hardly believe these attempts at enforcing some kind of restriction on expressing an opinion that even many LGBT people or "allies" would agree with is about "collegiality"; it can and has only resulted in the opposite, as is clear from the talk page of the original essay. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments here are likely to repeat some arguments from previous discussions about the essay. Not sure if there is a good summary available somewhere, but one starting point might the "endorsers" (currently 15) and "non endorsers" (currently 13) !votesatWikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ Add a comment
Discuss this story