Category talk:LGBT

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • I've removed "LGBT" from the human rights category, because honestly it doesn't have much to do with that category. Items about LGBT issues in that category, items about human rights here. --Mrmiscellanious 01:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mrmiscellanious, you could not be more wrong. The two categories are intrinsically linked. I can't believe it has taken this long for someone to deliver you a response. Mathew105601 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia LGBT / Interwiki[edit]

I have included the LGBT Portal as an interwiki collaboration at meta:Wikimedia LGBT. I invite project members here to come expand the Wikinews section to provide details about (and goals of) this project. I very much hope that our groups can work together and support each others' efforts in the future. --Another Believer (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate category for transgender[edit]

Out of LGBTQIAPD+ (and for this category name LGBT) most of them correspond to other’s gender. Gay and lesbian, because they are interested in same sex, bisexual because they are interested in both the genders; however, transgender has nothing to do with others. It is something different than being bisexual or pansexual. As how it is seen in Pakistani parliament passes bill for transgender rights. The sources said that bill did not speak about homosexual or bisexual people. And while I was writing it, I thought “duh! This is about those who don’t have a binary gender identity and not about whom do they fantasie; this is a well focused bill only for transgender people”. That is the reason I didn’t even think of adding adding this category because the first thing this category reminds me of if people’s preference for other people. That is not true for transgenders and I find LGBT as a misrepresentation of it. That was amplified by the choice of lead article image when an LGBT flag was used instead of very specific transgender flag. In various countries, transgenders are at least “recognised”, as copmared to being homosexual or bisexual. There should be a specific category for transgender, which makes it easier for us to track and also avoid misrepresentation.
•–• 03:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acagastya asked me to weigh in on this. My view: very few people are currently using categories to find articles. There's a separation between LGB and Trans issues, but there is some overlap too. I don't think using the category "LGBT" plus the sidebar to be a "misrepresentation" since the rainbow pride flag does refer to anyone who wants to use it. I don't think there's any harm in having a subsidiary category for transgender-related articles, to aid readers interested only in trans issues and not in LGB issues. That said, we publish a lot of articles that are directly related to both: photo essays from pride parades are generally for a pretty wide range of LGBT+ identities including non-binary, intersex, asexual and other groups. Narrowly slicing that up seems unnecessary. Plus, there are issues which upon first glance are thought only to relate to LGB people (like, for instance, marriage equality) but when you dig a little further also apply to trans people (the change in the law on marriage in England and Wales affected both LGB people and trans people, since before the law changed, getting a Gender Recognition Certificate automatically ended your marriage or civil partnership, while now a person who is married and goes through with legal gender recognition can stay married—if their spouse agrees, which itself is controversial and is referred to by many as the "spousal veto").
I don't think classifying an article on transgender rights as "LGBT" is "misrepresentation": T is in LGBT. We have other categories that are made up of conjunctions of things: Category:Economy and business, Category:Crime and law, and Category:Politics and conflicts. The fact they don't include both sides of the conjunction does not mean those categories are invalid, even though the conjunctions they represent are rather more arbitrary than LGBT, since LGBT is an internationally used term for both sexual orientation-based and gender identity-based minority groups.
I wouldn't be opposed to having a transgender category, as I said, but we ought to classify most articles that are exclusively about trans related issues into both a transgender topic and into the LGBT topic, much as every article on, say, what Donald Trump has just done ends up being categorised as both Donald Trump, Politics and conflicts, and United States. I don't think that Wikinews yet publishes enough trans-related articles to justify a template like Template:LGBT but just for trans articles. (On Template:LGBT, three of the five articles on the sidebar list are from 2017...) —Tom Morris (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tom Morris. There has been a lively debate over at Talk:Pakistani parliament passes bill for transgender rights that anyone weighing in on this should be sure to peruse. I don't think anyone has suggested Category:Transgender should not exist, so long as there are the requisite three articles per the standard practice. --SVTCobra 19:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]