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 minorities, 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.
Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but if a person can be "intersexed" (and that is grammatically correct) then why not "transgendered"? Granted, it was originally "transgender" for both, but language changes. BTW, the term was first invented in a support group in Minneapolis in the mid-1970s -- I was there. Unfortunately, I know of no printed published text that says this -- but I wanted you all to know that bit of history :) We began using it in a newsletter, and it spread from there. (Annoymous transgendered person who added to the history paragraph April 24, 2006)
Sexual is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a transsexual person. Gender is a noun (see 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? Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I tend to find it easier to side step the exact definition and just leave it as Trans
I've removed the reference to Eli Manning in the list of famous LGBT people for lack of proof (wishful thinking, someone?). Feel free to put it back if you can provide some sort of documentation. Pinball22 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I feel that this article is an excellent one-stop-shop for people who are looking for a quick link from articles about the LGBTI community. As such, I'd like to expand this article with detailed sections on each sub-community with references to the definitive articles. This is in keeping with Wikipedia style for articles that have grown the other way (where a section is removed into another article, and summarized in the original), and I'll try not to stray from that mode.
This all came up while editing Heteronormativity, where an editor there thought that LGBTI was not a good link, and needed to be expanded to individual links for several reasons, the most important being that coverage of transgender and intersex topics was mostly limited to simple links in this page.
I think they were right, and I'm just trying to make sure that that's not limiting any other edits on Wikipedia from now on. Please comment, thanks! - Harmil 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits to my work listed above:
In general I would like to discuss the language that I used, and understand where and why it is insufficient so that I can adapt it as needed. I'm of the opinion that this article should see a lot more link traffic, but that puts it in the delicate spot of needing to be worded not just for those of us who are immersed in the culture, but for those who haven't. If changes are made without discussion, I have almost no hope of understanding their goal, and thus preserving their meaning over the long haul. - Harmil 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed that because it is a rather odd way of phrasing the matter. Not only are both terms pleonasms (since genitals are always phyisical, and sex usually understood to be "biological", too), sex also covers genitals. In other words, a completely pointless repetition. Also, the "or" might confuse readers. It's simply "ambiguous or mismatching sexual characteristics", and one can throw in a "physically" to make that one absolutely clear, but that is already pushing the amount of clarification that makes sense. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
As a result of the above discussion, it becomes obvious to me that even someome who has been exposed to the GLBTI community can be quite unclear on topics such as primary sexual characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and the sex hormones. This means that a casual reader is going to need more than a simple link to a stub to sort out the difference. I will attempt to expand on the language in order to further explain without turning this into a copy of the cited pages... a tightrope walk at best.... - Harmil 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone up for cleaning the LGBT category? It needs major work and I am interested in starting now.
tdempsey 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:LGBT notice board has already discussed this on numerous occasions. Wikipedia does not do separate articles for each possible permutation of the queer community's group acronym; we have one article at LGBT, and all alternative orders of the letters redirect to that. If you don't like it, you can always propose that we move LGBT to a more inclusive title, but there will still only be one article, with all other acronyms redirecting to that one. The LGBT article does already discuss the use of extended acronyms and the variable order of the letters. Bearcat 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This article as it currently stands could use some more on the current and historical relationships with other groups that cover similar, or overlapping ground. For example, the interests of lesbian feminism clearly overlap at least in part with those of the LGBT movement, and in some cases people simultaneously identify with both, but there is a complex and often controversial relationship there. In addition, queer theory is sometimes taken to be an important theoretical underpinning, but that's also controversial. (I'm not adding anything myself because I only know of the relationships; I don't know much detail about them.) -- Delirium 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Even though they have been greatly improved, the last two paragraphs in the 'Controversy' section of the LGBT article are no longer entirely neutral. They give the impression that all people who are against a distinctive LGBT community are against equal rights under the law and social acceptance for LGBT people, which is simply not true. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to make this section more neutral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.214.17.198 ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC).
This article seems to apply mainly to North America, and to a much lesser extent some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. Can anyone expand it with a more global view? Da Masta 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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. - 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. -- 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.) -- Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It used to be just gay or lesbian then became GL and later GLB and GLBT with politically L placed first to help address that the gay community is not just men as GLBT opponents play on the stereotypes that gay issues are just men trying to have sex with and as well as children. Most people reading this know better but the stereotypes persist and use still perpetuated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 ( talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Google says
In .uk, LGBT is far more common
other results
So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing.
Morwen - Talk 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Librarians also favour LGBT: [4]
( es_uomikim 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
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:
Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the most common version you see in Australia these days is GLBTI, but that may just be ignorance of lesbian publications! It has one advantage over LGBTI - you can pronounce it /glɪbti/. You do occasionally see GLBTIQ as well.
Realistically I think these usages are going to vary widely and won’t necessarily follow any neo-Darwinian trajectory towards ultimate correctness as hinted at above. Life’s generally messier than that.
Queer still retains its Queer-Nation-ish meaning in some circles here, but in the gay press I wonder if it means anything more than gay sometimes. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be petty, but I think the article begins with a rather badly worded sentence: "LGBT (or GLBT, or Rainbow people) is an initialism used as a collective term to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people."
Firstly, it implies that "Rainbow People" is an initialism, which it clearly isn't. So, that's either got to be re-worded, or the "rainbow people" reference removed... I personally have never heard the term before, but if it is common, I'm cool with it staying in a better worded sentence. Secondly, should the T stand for "trans" or "transgender"? Both of them are umbrella terms, but most trans people I've met prefer trans... ok so that's not a very representative sample, but still. I know the National Union of Students (UK) LGBT campaign, and most UK student LGBT groups prefer trans. What's the case elsewhere? Saluton 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I for one definitely prefer "LGBT". As well as being far more common in the UK than "GLBT", it flows off the tongue better and doesn't give the impression of being in order of how marginalised they are. Saluton 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering the inclusion of examples in the article, such as the description used by the Triangle Program of Toronto, which bills itself as "Canada's only classroom for LGBTTI2QQAP youth." [5] I don't know whether such examples merit their own section, should exist only as footnote references, or should not be included at all. 72.244.207.209 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"The broad spectrum of LGBT groups has been expanded further in many cases, recently a resident of Manchester, Joe Parrott, has started an LGBT online gaming network that has proven very popular since its creation in 2009. The group joins together players of Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft and primarily Dark Age of Camelot, and has monthly meetings at Gay venues across the north."
This would seem to belong more properly to LGBT organizations, if it is notable enough for inclusion. Eponymous ( talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"The acronym LGBT has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media".
So we are saying that "LGBT" is used in the "LGBT community" and by "LGBT media". Presumably, the "LGBT community", for lack of any other definition, amounts to "those people who self-identify as 'LGBT'". This is just meaningless.
Also, the term being "mainstream" within the "LGBT community" is not sufficient for using it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, because Wikipedia isn't part of the "LGBT media" and is required to use the most common terminology in English as a whole.
Improper use of a 1990s neologism across Wikipedia leads to absurdities like " LGBT rights by country or territory". Please take a second to reflect on the introductory sentence, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) related laws vary greatly by country or territory".
This is nonsense. The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality, sometimes these laws distinguish between male and female homosexuality, and there are presumably some laws on "transgender", i.e. legal change of sex, a topic entirely separate from laws on homosexuality. Lumping this together isn't just absurd, it's also a violation of WP:SYNTH.
We need an article on Homosexuality laws. The proper encyclopedic term for male homosexuality is "male homosexuality", that for female homosexuality is "female homosexuality". Our articles should not be written in slang, even if it is the slang of the subculture under discussion.
I realize this will be difficult to fix, as I assume 90% of people interested in writing these articles are apparently members of this subculture, while another 9% are homophobic trolls. Nevertheless I hope that even involved editors can take a step back and appreciate this call for encyclopedicity. -- dab (𒁳) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "homosexuality laws" is perfectly appropriate. In fact throughout history, most laws aimed at curbing homesexual activity have almost always been exclusively applicable to gay men. The standard form prohibition on homosexual activity is a ban on sodomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I put "or GLBT" in because that's what usually happened in articles with alternative names. The reason for the last removal was "fixing template on page" which I don't understand. Why shouldn't it say "or GLBT"? Short life ( talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
There is now a new variant, "LGBTQI2-S", translating as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queer/intersexed/2-spirited. gsearch gives only 27 uses, but a main use is at the Homelessness Resource Center, and is used at a site run by "A program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services" [6]. I think this should be mentioned. (but this is getting somewhat ridiculous)(Mercurywoodrose) 76.245.45.179 ( talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This website should be removed from the external links - * GayLGBT.com
There is no real content.
Instead a good growing UK resource would be * LGBT.co.uk
87.114.234.161 ( talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't edit wikipedia enough to be allowed to add an edit directly to the page. I think that GSRM should be included with GSM as an initialism that additionally includes people with diverse relationship structures. There are descriptions of the term at Queer@UofM and FTM transcribed Therunaround ( talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This unusual abbreviation (not one I have come across before, and certainly not one in common usage) appears in the 'Variants' section of the article: "MSM" (er.g. [sic] "men who have sex with men"). Could the editors please review its use, and amend as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeybear ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, solosexuality automatically redirects to autoeroticism. I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that there is a difference between the two, since the latter appears to refer specifically to physical acts, whereas "solosexuality" sounds somewhat similar to asexuality, i.e. as a way of life including feelings, self-sufficiency, etc, and should perhaps therefore be included in the scope of LGBT topics, as well a in the LGBT symbols, etc. (Leading on from this, then, a new solosexuality article should perhaps be created...?) BigSteve ( talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The GSD initialism is not common so I feel it shouldn't be in the lead or bolded. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It is a POV term that not only is not recognized, even amongst actual Transgender groups, but excludes other groups already included in LGBT. Assume all attempts to include it are vandalism and remove immediately. 106.69.40.146 ( talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Harlequin
I am new at editing and was hoping for some help from someone more advanced. I found a dead link for ref #43:
Smith, S. E. (17 September 2010). "Separate But Equal Is Still Unequal". Retrieved 2010-11-27.
Could someone help provide a new reference here? Thanks.
JLand13 (
talk)
16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
In the very first sentence of the article there is a punctuation error. There should be no comma between bisexual and transgender. That's how it is now. A screenshot with the error. 178.94.102.44 ( talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why the "Q" in the acronym is left out, both in the title and in the article. I don't really see why it wouldn't be there. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasoning behind this? GoGatorMeds ( talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear esteemed members of the Wikipedia community, acronyms are abbreviations you can pronounce like a word (NATO, UNESCO). LGBT certainly doesn't come into this category so "acronym" should be changed to "abbreviation" throughout. You wouldn't want the Encyclopaedia Britannica people coming in and laughing! Many thanks. 95.172.64.57 ( talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Reading through the article I find it worrisome that the terms GSM and GSRM are mentioned without informing on how it has generally been abandoned when it was discovered that it was claimed by a paedophile. Personally I would rather have more focus on the term MOGAI as it is way more inclusive than LGBT ever will be. It is also worth mentioning the controversy around whether paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a fetish, although again most people I've seen has agreed that it is nothing but a fetish, or even an illness, and therefore would not be included in the MOGAI acronym. 88.88.224.3 ( talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not? If heterosexuals (what a weird word) want to be part of everybody ... why not. I'd like to be included as an h. Benvhoff ( talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Under the controversy section, it definitely should be brought up that the inclusion of "A for Allies" is pretty frowned upon, especially because it ends up erasing the A being for Asexual and also because while allies are allies of the community, they are not outright members. It is something that some groups do use in their abbreviations but it's definitely garnered some criticism. That said, there are a fair few people who are in favor of keeping it I just think it should be mentioned. Just google the topic and plenty of stuff comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.142 ( talk) 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
>> I believe "ally" should not be included in the definition of the acronym, since, as the user above stated, its inclusion is commonly frowned upon and it is not a sexual or gender identity. The A stands for "asexual." A separate comment on the controversy of including "ally" in the acronym can be added. -mmmmomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmomo ( talk • contribs)
There has been some edit warring over whether this category should receive a link in the See Also section. Given that this is a category rather than an article, I think it's clear that guidelines do not support its inclusion (see WP:SEEALSO and WP:EMBED). An actual list, if someone cares to create one, would be more appropriate given the guidelines. Additionally, the see also section on this page has quite a few links already, and I'm not in favor of adding more unless we can include some of the existing links in the article itself. If we included every LGBT-related article in the See Also section, it would take up more space than the article itself.
Pinging all those who have added this or reverted: @ Tenor12, Bilorv, and Trankuility: ~ Rob Talk 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
[[:Category:LGBT African Americans]]
(which produces
Category:LGBT African Americans). —
Bilorv
(talk)
(c)
(e)
17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely these less commonly used terms can be moved further down in the article? Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Tenor12 ( talk · contribs), hours ago, I saw your removal of this link from the WP:See also section, but I waited to see if anyone would revert you and/or object to the removal at this talk page. I don't understand your removal of that link. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section called "Variants", the sexuality, "panssexual" should be spelled "pansexual".
The sentence is, "The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual)..." Tyleroakleyyye ( talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
LGBT. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So... why are there no mentions of aromantics and agenders at all, even though the A applies to them as much as it does to asexuals?
198.161.51.70 ( talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we say this for sure? While I can buy that trans people got called gay, I'm not sure I buy that the LGB community accepted trans prior to this being reflected in the addition of T to the initialism.
The cited ref:
Does it specifically say this about trans?
Perhaps we should link LGB community until there is proof and do a redirect to pre-trans history. 64.228.90.87 ( talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Last sentence in lede:"Whether or not LGBT people openly identify themselves may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment, as well as on the status of LGBT rights where they live." is rubbish. An individual's decision to "openly identify" depends on all sorts of things. HOW is it useful to claim it "may depend" on [where they live]? It may depend on their parents attitude, their bosses attitude, their job, their goals, their confidence, or whether identifying would put them in significant physical risk. The lede is pretty poorly written; for instance it's claimed that the "initialism is intended..." which is more nonsense. What is being claimed ? that anyone using the phrase intends to emphasize such-and-such? That it just not true. LGBT refers to a category of people, communities, groups, organizations, or political, medical, economic, entertainment, recreational, etc. etc. issues or interests or places. In my opionion, it would be better to mention whether or not a LGBT community usually exists when the social/cultural/legal environment is agreeable and in how much of the world is there "strong" cultural, economic, institutional, or legal discrimination against LGBT peoples. It would be useful to mention the number of countries that make LGBT (sexual, dress) behavior illegal. 72.172.10.197 ( talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989
More specifics to help are good, like we could say on page 72 it says "arguing the need for more LGB perspective in the organization".
Bit confused on dates... a volume came out in 85 and fact sheets for it were compiled in 89?
Anyone know how to do a news/book search on google and arrange results from oldest to newest? Curious when GLB started use. I found a 2005 site but figure it's not first.
First use of BGL? Figure must be some alph order nuts like me out there. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
For GLBT:
For GLB:
How's that for backtrace? Doesn't this show GLB predates LGB based on references? 64.228.90.87 ( talk) 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW many uses would have been unpublished or even in newspapers, flyers, etc. It would be best to show a researcher who has looked at the usage and state what they have found. Dayaware ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not all who include the I are intersex themselves or even advocates but prefer to be more inclusive. The sentence can be shortened as follows:
The article says: Some intersex people who want to be included in LGBT groups suggest an extended initialism LGBTI
It should say: Those who wish to include intersex people use LGBTI.
Dayaware ( talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Several times now I've tried to remove a superfluous statement. It's the second sentence about what some, unnamed Roman Catholic commentators think.
In response to years of lobbying from users and LGBT groups to eliminate discrimination, the online social networking service Facebook, in February 2014, widened its choice of gender variants for users. However, this decision was criticized by various Roman Catholic commentators.
There is zero evidence Roman Catholic commentators are experts in the history or nomenclature of LGBT or LGBT culture. Who cares what they think? The Facebook decision was lauded by countless named authorities and commentators across a religious spectrum yet we don't include their opinions. There is no reason to include the second sentence but I'm sick of dealing with one editor to get it removed and they are unwilling to defend its inclusion besides that it has been there a while.
Please remove it to improve the article. Dayaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayaware ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 November 2015
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.2.246.83 ( talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I just thought I'd throw out a suggestion to link this page in some way to the LGBT ageing page--perhaps just via the "see also" section? As a person with a (now-deceased) elderly, estranged lesbian relative who ended up moving across the country to escape (the worst) bigotry, I thought this was a useful topic/resource to link to, perhaps. :) Thanks. Indubitablydoubtful ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the appropriate acronym to be used? Is it GLBT or LGBT? This is an organization which promotes sexual equality among persons of varying sexual orientations or life-styles. The term “Gay Rights” is more pure to the notion of equal acceptance and tolerance of persons with differing sexual orientations than “Lesbianism.” The notion of “Lesbianism” encompasses a wide range of political beliefs ranging from equal acceptance of homosexuality in society (which most reasonable people support) to the promotion of lesbian over all other forms of sexual relationships. There is considerable conflict between many tenets of Lesbianism and other groups of the GLBT movement. For instance Lesbianism often adopts a radical feminist conception of gender. This view holds that gender is entirely socially constructed. The very existence of transsexuals conflicts with this holding. In 2000 the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a pro-Lesbianism and feminist organization, successfully sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the society discriminated against a transsexual female (See Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society). On the other hand, gay men have not been known to be political active in areas of gender segregation, extreme misogyny or hostility toward transsexual individuals. Traditionally the acronym has been GLBT. The GLBT movement was focused on the acceptance of sexual diversity. Other political interests should not be subsumed by the GLBT movement, lest the hostilities toward those extrinsic political ideologies hinder the otherwise legitimate and widely supported movement toward sexual diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As a gay man, I say it is a political acronym. I have no connection to lesbians and transconfused. Why am I being lumped in with these people but for political reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED ( talk) 07:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
In Canada most universities have a "GLBT" centre. The acronym seems uncontroversial. Perhaps a fair solution would be HBT (Homesexual, Bisexual and Transexual)? This acronym seems more pure to the movement. The movement is nothing more than the acceptance of sexual diversity in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If the proper historical reference is supposed to be included & used, historically, "GLBT" is the term referenced originally. LGBT is a somewhat recent change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.145 ( talk) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
For reference, I'm including some URLs to pages which discuss the topic of GLBT vs. LGBT
GLBT is a mainstream term. It is used by organizations such as Carleton University, University of Victoria, University of Toronto, United Church of Canada, Ottawa Police Service, Public Service Alliance of Canada and many other organizations. One need only Google "GLBT" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
References
Call me nit-picky, but I came across a phrase in the History section that is a bit POV: "..the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion." This sounds as though it is a quote that needs textual attribution, which is why I declined to make any corrections myself, but what I do know is that the article should not make such judgments on its own. Mrathel ( talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree 2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED ( talk) 07:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be the term the CBC is going with these days, as well as the term Justin Trudeau is using. I just added a DAB to here from LGBTQ2. I'm nothing like a subject expert—could someone add an appropriately sourced mention to the article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't something like LGB be its own article? Before the 90s the initialism existed without the T and the community wasn't necessarily accepting of transgender individuals. I think that deserves its own article. We may well see this moved to LGBTQ in a decade and similarly, LGBT's existence without the Q should get its own discussion. Ranze ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am a student and I plan to soon start working on creating an article entitled "domestic violence in same-sex relationships." I believe this article fits under the interests of this group, and I would be very open to any suggestions or help in creating and bettering the article. Kmwebber ( talk) 17:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber
Trankuility, regarding this and this, it's just that I find the recently added content somewhat off-topic. I am all for adding information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category, but that's not what you added. And we do have a "Criticism of the term" section for including information about why some people disagree with being categorized as LGBT; so the article doesn't simply state "some agree and some don't."
But again, I'm not going to remove what you added. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw this in one of the advice columns and created a redirect, though I was not able to find what it meant.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am teaching Politics of Gender and Sexuality through Wiki Edu and would like edit access for this page for classroom demonstration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosterbur ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As the article stands, the sources given say that the acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism", however, I'm just questioning the "flexual" label. Do they mean a "flexible" sexuality instead (i.e. heteroflexible/ homoflexible)? And should the wording in this sentence of the article be changed to reflect that difference? – Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Isn't it a little ironic if there's the word 'fag' when we're reffering to the LGBT community in a good way?
LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am part of the Lgbt community, and i would like to add some content to this page. will you allow me to do that DanDaMan13 ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include the initialism "LGBTQA" in the list, the "A" added to include Asexuals. CBurrows ( talk) 08:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The map shows incorrect information and colour on the LGBT rights maps both China and Lithuania doesn't have Laws restricting freedom of expression and association.
China : The laws in china Censored any sexual behaviour on web or TVs , chinafilminsider.com/china-tightens-censorship-of-online-dramas/ 2.) according to the national law in China there's no LAW in restricting LGBT freedom of expression in public.
Lithuania : in mid-May, Lithuania’s foreign minister announced that his government had granted visas to two Chechens who “suffered persecution because of their sexual orientation.” And last week, Joël Deumier, president of the French gay rights group SOS Homophobie, said a Chechen refugee had arrived in France.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/chechnya-gays-refugees.html
There is no way that Lithuania has law restricting LGBT freedom of expression, especially Lithuania is part of the European Union. Please can someone change the colour of both countries, this is Misleading people who read the LGBT rights page. Thank you
So how is this Jadeadam731724 ( talk) 09:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot fing the word "quing" in the article, yet it is redirected here. What am I missing? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does this initialism redirect here? I can find nothing in this article which helps clarify what it means. Walkersam ( talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So the History section is obviously connected to the LGBT history and Timeline of LGBT history articles, to which they correctly link in a "Main article:"-way. As described in WP:SUMMARY this section should be a summary of those two articles. But while those articles give a worldwide perspective that starts in the prehistory and goes on throughout the centuries, this section starts in the 1960 United States because before the sexual revolution there was no good word for it yet that gained wide acceptance in the United States. It goes on about Daughters of Bilitis, the popularity of the term in the US, the Stonewall Riots, the GLAAD and Facebook which all have the same thing in common: they were in either the late 20th or early 21st century United States. I'm sure this section can be improved to include more from those pages. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main|LGBT history}}
and {{
Main|Timeline of LGBT history}}
should be removed from the History section as misleading, and tending to blur focus. (Could become wikilinks instead.)|section
param, otherwise I'd recommend placing it at the top of the History section, with an appropriate "reason" param. Possibly we could place it at the top of the article, but with a hatnote serving the purpose, I don't think it would be necessary.I can't find any mentions of the commonly used '+' part of the acronym. Should this be added, or is there a reason that it is not included? Inkybinky3 ( talk) 12:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I don't really think this is needed, as the most common and well-known form is LGBT. LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC) LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As a reply to my words said above, LGBTQ is more common than LGBTQ+
The truth is everybody is going to hurt you, you just have to find someone worth suffering for LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I say follow your heart but be honest even if you are experimenting. Bicurious22 ( talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
LGBT is old and no longer used, I propose adding on the rest of the letters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B128:3522:9DAF:9111:8A59:A22C ( talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Notes
Oh for crying out loud. Nobody has agreed with the OP, so there's really no reason to be having a lengthy discussion (with or without patronizing asides about one another's supposedly antiquated outlooks). If anyone cares to continue this in user space, I do have a thing or two to say. In the meantime, can we mark this "resolved"? Rivertorch FIRE WATER 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Saying that the term LGBT is "old and no longer used" is simply inaccurate. In areas where the language is changing the fastest in this regard (probably college campuses and activist organizations) this may be true, but general usage is much broader than that. Books are a trailing indicator, but show how the terms are being used now on a much broader front, and what I see is LGBT being used about ten times more frequently than LGBTQ, with usage of the latter term increasing more rapidly than usage of the former. If that trend continues unabated, then LGBTQ will one day overtake LGBT in general usage, but we're not at that point yet. In particular, how the term is used on college campuses may be a sign of what's coming, but Wikipedia itself is a trailing indicator not a crystal ball, and needs to support claims based on reliable secondary sources, not on the latest buzz. Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What a fucking moronic sentence. Fix it. 80.146.191.154 ( talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
QUILTBAG acronym—incomplete definition. The reason for this edit should be obvious.
Please change: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." to: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." ADKINSKB ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Section needs to be edited, right? There are a lot of community disagreements about whether or not asexual and intersex people are inherently LGBT, with members of those communities sometimes asking to be excluded. Especially wrt intersex people, who feel that biology should not coerce them into identifying as trans. Here's a source This page should be updated to reflect the disagreement around those issues, rather than just assume inclusion. Apremonition ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Student 1: Bryannie Bach
Bryanniebach ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Bryanniebach
Why is this the description of LGBT??? Somepersonwholivesinahouse ( talk) 6:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead section does show the importance of the topic, then goes right into the history. I do see how this is a history article, but the view is skewed slightly positively and does address people who have disagreed on the topic. The sections are very well balanced, giving a little more length to the history, and less to the other sections explaining is a great way to organize. I do think that there are a lot of quotes in the article that could instead be summarized. Maybe combining the Other Variants section with the Alternative Terms section would allow for expansion in this category. I would also like to see how this term differs around the world and when it sparked up, since others on the Talk page have been discussing how it is used as a different variation in Canada. Terir ( talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)terir
This photo (officially released by US Navy) shows two lesbian females belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in LGBT article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of LGBT, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by LGBT can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.196.137 ( talk) 06:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
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 minorities, 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.
Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but if a person can be "intersexed" (and that is grammatically correct) then why not "transgendered"? Granted, it was originally "transgender" for both, but language changes. BTW, the term was first invented in a support group in Minneapolis in the mid-1970s -- I was there. Unfortunately, I know of no printed published text that says this -- but I wanted you all to know that bit of history :) We began using it in a newsletter, and it spread from there. (Annoymous transgendered person who added to the history paragraph April 24, 2006)
Sexual is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a transsexual person. Gender is a noun (see 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? Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I tend to find it easier to side step the exact definition and just leave it as Trans
I've removed the reference to Eli Manning in the list of famous LGBT people for lack of proof (wishful thinking, someone?). Feel free to put it back if you can provide some sort of documentation. Pinball22 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I feel that this article is an excellent one-stop-shop for people who are looking for a quick link from articles about the LGBTI community. As such, I'd like to expand this article with detailed sections on each sub-community with references to the definitive articles. This is in keeping with Wikipedia style for articles that have grown the other way (where a section is removed into another article, and summarized in the original), and I'll try not to stray from that mode.
This all came up while editing Heteronormativity, where an editor there thought that LGBTI was not a good link, and needed to be expanded to individual links for several reasons, the most important being that coverage of transgender and intersex topics was mostly limited to simple links in this page.
I think they were right, and I'm just trying to make sure that that's not limiting any other edits on Wikipedia from now on. Please comment, thanks! - Harmil 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits to my work listed above:
In general I would like to discuss the language that I used, and understand where and why it is insufficient so that I can adapt it as needed. I'm of the opinion that this article should see a lot more link traffic, but that puts it in the delicate spot of needing to be worded not just for those of us who are immersed in the culture, but for those who haven't. If changes are made without discussion, I have almost no hope of understanding their goal, and thus preserving their meaning over the long haul. - Harmil 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed that because it is a rather odd way of phrasing the matter. Not only are both terms pleonasms (since genitals are always phyisical, and sex usually understood to be "biological", too), sex also covers genitals. In other words, a completely pointless repetition. Also, the "or" might confuse readers. It's simply "ambiguous or mismatching sexual characteristics", and one can throw in a "physically" to make that one absolutely clear, but that is already pushing the amount of clarification that makes sense. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
As a result of the above discussion, it becomes obvious to me that even someome who has been exposed to the GLBTI community can be quite unclear on topics such as primary sexual characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and the sex hormones. This means that a casual reader is going to need more than a simple link to a stub to sort out the difference. I will attempt to expand on the language in order to further explain without turning this into a copy of the cited pages... a tightrope walk at best.... - Harmil 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone up for cleaning the LGBT category? It needs major work and I am interested in starting now.
tdempsey 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:LGBT notice board has already discussed this on numerous occasions. Wikipedia does not do separate articles for each possible permutation of the queer community's group acronym; we have one article at LGBT, and all alternative orders of the letters redirect to that. If you don't like it, you can always propose that we move LGBT to a more inclusive title, but there will still only be one article, with all other acronyms redirecting to that one. The LGBT article does already discuss the use of extended acronyms and the variable order of the letters. Bearcat 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This article as it currently stands could use some more on the current and historical relationships with other groups that cover similar, or overlapping ground. For example, the interests of lesbian feminism clearly overlap at least in part with those of the LGBT movement, and in some cases people simultaneously identify with both, but there is a complex and often controversial relationship there. In addition, queer theory is sometimes taken to be an important theoretical underpinning, but that's also controversial. (I'm not adding anything myself because I only know of the relationships; I don't know much detail about them.) -- Delirium 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Even though they have been greatly improved, the last two paragraphs in the 'Controversy' section of the LGBT article are no longer entirely neutral. They give the impression that all people who are against a distinctive LGBT community are against equal rights under the law and social acceptance for LGBT people, which is simply not true. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to make this section more neutral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.214.17.198 ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC).
This article seems to apply mainly to North America, and to a much lesser extent some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. Can anyone expand it with a more global view? Da Masta 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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. - 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. -- 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.) -- Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It used to be just gay or lesbian then became GL and later GLB and GLBT with politically L placed first to help address that the gay community is not just men as GLBT opponents play on the stereotypes that gay issues are just men trying to have sex with and as well as children. Most people reading this know better but the stereotypes persist and use still perpetuated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 ( talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Google says
In .uk, LGBT is far more common
other results
So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing.
Morwen - Talk 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Librarians also favour LGBT: [4]
( es_uomikim 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
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:
Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the most common version you see in Australia these days is GLBTI, but that may just be ignorance of lesbian publications! It has one advantage over LGBTI - you can pronounce it /glɪbti/. You do occasionally see GLBTIQ as well.
Realistically I think these usages are going to vary widely and won’t necessarily follow any neo-Darwinian trajectory towards ultimate correctness as hinted at above. Life’s generally messier than that.
Queer still retains its Queer-Nation-ish meaning in some circles here, but in the gay press I wonder if it means anything more than gay sometimes. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be petty, but I think the article begins with a rather badly worded sentence: "LGBT (or GLBT, or Rainbow people) is an initialism used as a collective term to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people."
Firstly, it implies that "Rainbow People" is an initialism, which it clearly isn't. So, that's either got to be re-worded, or the "rainbow people" reference removed... I personally have never heard the term before, but if it is common, I'm cool with it staying in a better worded sentence. Secondly, should the T stand for "trans" or "transgender"? Both of them are umbrella terms, but most trans people I've met prefer trans... ok so that's not a very representative sample, but still. I know the National Union of Students (UK) LGBT campaign, and most UK student LGBT groups prefer trans. What's the case elsewhere? Saluton 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I for one definitely prefer "LGBT". As well as being far more common in the UK than "GLBT", it flows off the tongue better and doesn't give the impression of being in order of how marginalised they are. Saluton 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering the inclusion of examples in the article, such as the description used by the Triangle Program of Toronto, which bills itself as "Canada's only classroom for LGBTTI2QQAP youth." [5] I don't know whether such examples merit their own section, should exist only as footnote references, or should not be included at all. 72.244.207.209 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"The broad spectrum of LGBT groups has been expanded further in many cases, recently a resident of Manchester, Joe Parrott, has started an LGBT online gaming network that has proven very popular since its creation in 2009. The group joins together players of Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft and primarily Dark Age of Camelot, and has monthly meetings at Gay venues across the north."
This would seem to belong more properly to LGBT organizations, if it is notable enough for inclusion. Eponymous ( talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"The acronym LGBT has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media".
So we are saying that "LGBT" is used in the "LGBT community" and by "LGBT media". Presumably, the "LGBT community", for lack of any other definition, amounts to "those people who self-identify as 'LGBT'". This is just meaningless.
Also, the term being "mainstream" within the "LGBT community" is not sufficient for using it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, because Wikipedia isn't part of the "LGBT media" and is required to use the most common terminology in English as a whole.
Improper use of a 1990s neologism across Wikipedia leads to absurdities like " LGBT rights by country or territory". Please take a second to reflect on the introductory sentence, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) related laws vary greatly by country or territory".
This is nonsense. The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality, sometimes these laws distinguish between male and female homosexuality, and there are presumably some laws on "transgender", i.e. legal change of sex, a topic entirely separate from laws on homosexuality. Lumping this together isn't just absurd, it's also a violation of WP:SYNTH.
We need an article on Homosexuality laws. The proper encyclopedic term for male homosexuality is "male homosexuality", that for female homosexuality is "female homosexuality". Our articles should not be written in slang, even if it is the slang of the subculture under discussion.
I realize this will be difficult to fix, as I assume 90% of people interested in writing these articles are apparently members of this subculture, while another 9% are homophobic trolls. Nevertheless I hope that even involved editors can take a step back and appreciate this call for encyclopedicity. -- dab (𒁳) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "homosexuality laws" is perfectly appropriate. In fact throughout history, most laws aimed at curbing homesexual activity have almost always been exclusively applicable to gay men. The standard form prohibition on homosexual activity is a ban on sodomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I put "or GLBT" in because that's what usually happened in articles with alternative names. The reason for the last removal was "fixing template on page" which I don't understand. Why shouldn't it say "or GLBT"? Short life ( talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
There is now a new variant, "LGBTQI2-S", translating as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queer/intersexed/2-spirited. gsearch gives only 27 uses, but a main use is at the Homelessness Resource Center, and is used at a site run by "A program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services" [6]. I think this should be mentioned. (but this is getting somewhat ridiculous)(Mercurywoodrose) 76.245.45.179 ( talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This website should be removed from the external links - * GayLGBT.com
There is no real content.
Instead a good growing UK resource would be * LGBT.co.uk
87.114.234.161 ( talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't edit wikipedia enough to be allowed to add an edit directly to the page. I think that GSRM should be included with GSM as an initialism that additionally includes people with diverse relationship structures. There are descriptions of the term at Queer@UofM and FTM transcribed Therunaround ( talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This unusual abbreviation (not one I have come across before, and certainly not one in common usage) appears in the 'Variants' section of the article: "MSM" (er.g. [sic] "men who have sex with men"). Could the editors please review its use, and amend as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeybear ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, solosexuality automatically redirects to autoeroticism. I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that there is a difference between the two, since the latter appears to refer specifically to physical acts, whereas "solosexuality" sounds somewhat similar to asexuality, i.e. as a way of life including feelings, self-sufficiency, etc, and should perhaps therefore be included in the scope of LGBT topics, as well a in the LGBT symbols, etc. (Leading on from this, then, a new solosexuality article should perhaps be created...?) BigSteve ( talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The GSD initialism is not common so I feel it shouldn't be in the lead or bolded. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It is a POV term that not only is not recognized, even amongst actual Transgender groups, but excludes other groups already included in LGBT. Assume all attempts to include it are vandalism and remove immediately. 106.69.40.146 ( talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Harlequin
I am new at editing and was hoping for some help from someone more advanced. I found a dead link for ref #43:
Smith, S. E. (17 September 2010). "Separate But Equal Is Still Unequal". Retrieved 2010-11-27.
Could someone help provide a new reference here? Thanks.
JLand13 (
talk)
16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
In the very first sentence of the article there is a punctuation error. There should be no comma between bisexual and transgender. That's how it is now. A screenshot with the error. 178.94.102.44 ( talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why the "Q" in the acronym is left out, both in the title and in the article. I don't really see why it wouldn't be there. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasoning behind this? GoGatorMeds ( talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear esteemed members of the Wikipedia community, acronyms are abbreviations you can pronounce like a word (NATO, UNESCO). LGBT certainly doesn't come into this category so "acronym" should be changed to "abbreviation" throughout. You wouldn't want the Encyclopaedia Britannica people coming in and laughing! Many thanks. 95.172.64.57 ( talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Reading through the article I find it worrisome that the terms GSM and GSRM are mentioned without informing on how it has generally been abandoned when it was discovered that it was claimed by a paedophile. Personally I would rather have more focus on the term MOGAI as it is way more inclusive than LGBT ever will be. It is also worth mentioning the controversy around whether paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a fetish, although again most people I've seen has agreed that it is nothing but a fetish, or even an illness, and therefore would not be included in the MOGAI acronym. 88.88.224.3 ( talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not? If heterosexuals (what a weird word) want to be part of everybody ... why not. I'd like to be included as an h. Benvhoff ( talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Under the controversy section, it definitely should be brought up that the inclusion of "A for Allies" is pretty frowned upon, especially because it ends up erasing the A being for Asexual and also because while allies are allies of the community, they are not outright members. It is something that some groups do use in their abbreviations but it's definitely garnered some criticism. That said, there are a fair few people who are in favor of keeping it I just think it should be mentioned. Just google the topic and plenty of stuff comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.142 ( talk) 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
>> I believe "ally" should not be included in the definition of the acronym, since, as the user above stated, its inclusion is commonly frowned upon and it is not a sexual or gender identity. The A stands for "asexual." A separate comment on the controversy of including "ally" in the acronym can be added. -mmmmomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmomo ( talk • contribs)
There has been some edit warring over whether this category should receive a link in the See Also section. Given that this is a category rather than an article, I think it's clear that guidelines do not support its inclusion (see WP:SEEALSO and WP:EMBED). An actual list, if someone cares to create one, would be more appropriate given the guidelines. Additionally, the see also section on this page has quite a few links already, and I'm not in favor of adding more unless we can include some of the existing links in the article itself. If we included every LGBT-related article in the See Also section, it would take up more space than the article itself.
Pinging all those who have added this or reverted: @ Tenor12, Bilorv, and Trankuility: ~ Rob Talk 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
[[:Category:LGBT African Americans]]
(which produces
Category:LGBT African Americans). —
Bilorv
(talk)
(c)
(e)
17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely these less commonly used terms can be moved further down in the article? Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Tenor12 ( talk · contribs), hours ago, I saw your removal of this link from the WP:See also section, but I waited to see if anyone would revert you and/or object to the removal at this talk page. I don't understand your removal of that link. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section called "Variants", the sexuality, "panssexual" should be spelled "pansexual".
The sentence is, "The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual)..." Tyleroakleyyye ( talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
LGBT. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So... why are there no mentions of aromantics and agenders at all, even though the A applies to them as much as it does to asexuals?
198.161.51.70 ( talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we say this for sure? While I can buy that trans people got called gay, I'm not sure I buy that the LGB community accepted trans prior to this being reflected in the addition of T to the initialism.
The cited ref:
Does it specifically say this about trans?
Perhaps we should link LGB community until there is proof and do a redirect to pre-trans history. 64.228.90.87 ( talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Last sentence in lede:"Whether or not LGBT people openly identify themselves may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment, as well as on the status of LGBT rights where they live." is rubbish. An individual's decision to "openly identify" depends on all sorts of things. HOW is it useful to claim it "may depend" on [where they live]? It may depend on their parents attitude, their bosses attitude, their job, their goals, their confidence, or whether identifying would put them in significant physical risk. The lede is pretty poorly written; for instance it's claimed that the "initialism is intended..." which is more nonsense. What is being claimed ? that anyone using the phrase intends to emphasize such-and-such? That it just not true. LGBT refers to a category of people, communities, groups, organizations, or political, medical, economic, entertainment, recreational, etc. etc. issues or interests or places. In my opionion, it would be better to mention whether or not a LGBT community usually exists when the social/cultural/legal environment is agreeable and in how much of the world is there "strong" cultural, economic, institutional, or legal discrimination against LGBT peoples. It would be useful to mention the number of countries that make LGBT (sexual, dress) behavior illegal. 72.172.10.197 ( talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989
More specifics to help are good, like we could say on page 72 it says "arguing the need for more LGB perspective in the organization".
Bit confused on dates... a volume came out in 85 and fact sheets for it were compiled in 89?
Anyone know how to do a news/book search on google and arrange results from oldest to newest? Curious when GLB started use. I found a 2005 site but figure it's not first.
First use of BGL? Figure must be some alph order nuts like me out there. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
For GLBT:
For GLB:
How's that for backtrace? Doesn't this show GLB predates LGB based on references? 64.228.90.87 ( talk) 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW many uses would have been unpublished or even in newspapers, flyers, etc. It would be best to show a researcher who has looked at the usage and state what they have found. Dayaware ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not all who include the I are intersex themselves or even advocates but prefer to be more inclusive. The sentence can be shortened as follows:
The article says: Some intersex people who want to be included in LGBT groups suggest an extended initialism LGBTI
It should say: Those who wish to include intersex people use LGBTI.
Dayaware ( talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Several times now I've tried to remove a superfluous statement. It's the second sentence about what some, unnamed Roman Catholic commentators think.
In response to years of lobbying from users and LGBT groups to eliminate discrimination, the online social networking service Facebook, in February 2014, widened its choice of gender variants for users. However, this decision was criticized by various Roman Catholic commentators.
There is zero evidence Roman Catholic commentators are experts in the history or nomenclature of LGBT or LGBT culture. Who cares what they think? The Facebook decision was lauded by countless named authorities and commentators across a religious spectrum yet we don't include their opinions. There is no reason to include the second sentence but I'm sick of dealing with one editor to get it removed and they are unwilling to defend its inclusion besides that it has been there a while.
Please remove it to improve the article. Dayaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayaware ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 November 2015
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.2.246.83 ( talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I just thought I'd throw out a suggestion to link this page in some way to the LGBT ageing page--perhaps just via the "see also" section? As a person with a (now-deceased) elderly, estranged lesbian relative who ended up moving across the country to escape (the worst) bigotry, I thought this was a useful topic/resource to link to, perhaps. :) Thanks. Indubitablydoubtful ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the appropriate acronym to be used? Is it GLBT or LGBT? This is an organization which promotes sexual equality among persons of varying sexual orientations or life-styles. The term “Gay Rights” is more pure to the notion of equal acceptance and tolerance of persons with differing sexual orientations than “Lesbianism.” The notion of “Lesbianism” encompasses a wide range of political beliefs ranging from equal acceptance of homosexuality in society (which most reasonable people support) to the promotion of lesbian over all other forms of sexual relationships. There is considerable conflict between many tenets of Lesbianism and other groups of the GLBT movement. For instance Lesbianism often adopts a radical feminist conception of gender. This view holds that gender is entirely socially constructed. The very existence of transsexuals conflicts with this holding. In 2000 the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a pro-Lesbianism and feminist organization, successfully sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the society discriminated against a transsexual female (See Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society). On the other hand, gay men have not been known to be political active in areas of gender segregation, extreme misogyny or hostility toward transsexual individuals. Traditionally the acronym has been GLBT. The GLBT movement was focused on the acceptance of sexual diversity. Other political interests should not be subsumed by the GLBT movement, lest the hostilities toward those extrinsic political ideologies hinder the otherwise legitimate and widely supported movement toward sexual diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As a gay man, I say it is a political acronym. I have no connection to lesbians and transconfused. Why am I being lumped in with these people but for political reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED ( talk) 07:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
In Canada most universities have a "GLBT" centre. The acronym seems uncontroversial. Perhaps a fair solution would be HBT (Homesexual, Bisexual and Transexual)? This acronym seems more pure to the movement. The movement is nothing more than the acceptance of sexual diversity in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If the proper historical reference is supposed to be included & used, historically, "GLBT" is the term referenced originally. LGBT is a somewhat recent change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.145 ( talk) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
For reference, I'm including some URLs to pages which discuss the topic of GLBT vs. LGBT
GLBT is a mainstream term. It is used by organizations such as Carleton University, University of Victoria, University of Toronto, United Church of Canada, Ottawa Police Service, Public Service Alliance of Canada and many other organizations. One need only Google "GLBT" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
References
Call me nit-picky, but I came across a phrase in the History section that is a bit POV: "..the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion." This sounds as though it is a quote that needs textual attribution, which is why I declined to make any corrections myself, but what I do know is that the article should not make such judgments on its own. Mrathel ( talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree 2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED ( talk) 07:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be the term the CBC is going with these days, as well as the term Justin Trudeau is using. I just added a DAB to here from LGBTQ2. I'm nothing like a subject expert—could someone add an appropriately sourced mention to the article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't something like LGB be its own article? Before the 90s the initialism existed without the T and the community wasn't necessarily accepting of transgender individuals. I think that deserves its own article. We may well see this moved to LGBTQ in a decade and similarly, LGBT's existence without the Q should get its own discussion. Ranze ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am a student and I plan to soon start working on creating an article entitled "domestic violence in same-sex relationships." I believe this article fits under the interests of this group, and I would be very open to any suggestions or help in creating and bettering the article. Kmwebber ( talk) 17:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber
Trankuility, regarding this and this, it's just that I find the recently added content somewhat off-topic. I am all for adding information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category, but that's not what you added. And we do have a "Criticism of the term" section for including information about why some people disagree with being categorized as LGBT; so the article doesn't simply state "some agree and some don't."
But again, I'm not going to remove what you added. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw this in one of the advice columns and created a redirect, though I was not able to find what it meant.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am teaching Politics of Gender and Sexuality through Wiki Edu and would like edit access for this page for classroom demonstration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosterbur ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As the article stands, the sources given say that the acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism", however, I'm just questioning the "flexual" label. Do they mean a "flexible" sexuality instead (i.e. heteroflexible/ homoflexible)? And should the wording in this sentence of the article be changed to reflect that difference? – Zumoarirodoka ( talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Isn't it a little ironic if there's the word 'fag' when we're reffering to the LGBT community in a good way?
LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am part of the Lgbt community, and i would like to add some content to this page. will you allow me to do that DanDaMan13 ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include the initialism "LGBTQA" in the list, the "A" added to include Asexuals. CBurrows ( talk) 08:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The map shows incorrect information and colour on the LGBT rights maps both China and Lithuania doesn't have Laws restricting freedom of expression and association.
China : The laws in china Censored any sexual behaviour on web or TVs , chinafilminsider.com/china-tightens-censorship-of-online-dramas/ 2.) according to the national law in China there's no LAW in restricting LGBT freedom of expression in public.
Lithuania : in mid-May, Lithuania’s foreign minister announced that his government had granted visas to two Chechens who “suffered persecution because of their sexual orientation.” And last week, Joël Deumier, president of the French gay rights group SOS Homophobie, said a Chechen refugee had arrived in France.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/chechnya-gays-refugees.html
There is no way that Lithuania has law restricting LGBT freedom of expression, especially Lithuania is part of the European Union. Please can someone change the colour of both countries, this is Misleading people who read the LGBT rights page. Thank you
So how is this Jadeadam731724 ( talk) 09:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot fing the word "quing" in the article, yet it is redirected here. What am I missing? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does this initialism redirect here? I can find nothing in this article which helps clarify what it means. Walkersam ( talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So the History section is obviously connected to the LGBT history and Timeline of LGBT history articles, to which they correctly link in a "Main article:"-way. As described in WP:SUMMARY this section should be a summary of those two articles. But while those articles give a worldwide perspective that starts in the prehistory and goes on throughout the centuries, this section starts in the 1960 United States because before the sexual revolution there was no good word for it yet that gained wide acceptance in the United States. It goes on about Daughters of Bilitis, the popularity of the term in the US, the Stonewall Riots, the GLAAD and Facebook which all have the same thing in common: they were in either the late 20th or early 21st century United States. I'm sure this section can be improved to include more from those pages. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main|LGBT history}}
and {{
Main|Timeline of LGBT history}}
should be removed from the History section as misleading, and tending to blur focus. (Could become wikilinks instead.)|section
param, otherwise I'd recommend placing it at the top of the History section, with an appropriate "reason" param. Possibly we could place it at the top of the article, but with a hatnote serving the purpose, I don't think it would be necessary.I can't find any mentions of the commonly used '+' part of the acronym. Should this be added, or is there a reason that it is not included? Inkybinky3 ( talk) 12:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I don't really think this is needed, as the most common and well-known form is LGBT. LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC) LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As a reply to my words said above, LGBTQ is more common than LGBTQ+
The truth is everybody is going to hurt you, you just have to find someone worth suffering for LyricsThatSing ( talk) 10:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I say follow your heart but be honest even if you are experimenting. Bicurious22 ( talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
LGBT is old and no longer used, I propose adding on the rest of the letters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B128:3522:9DAF:9111:8A59:A22C ( talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Notes
Oh for crying out loud. Nobody has agreed with the OP, so there's really no reason to be having a lengthy discussion (with or without patronizing asides about one another's supposedly antiquated outlooks). If anyone cares to continue this in user space, I do have a thing or two to say. In the meantime, can we mark this "resolved"? Rivertorch FIRE WATER 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Saying that the term LGBT is "old and no longer used" is simply inaccurate. In areas where the language is changing the fastest in this regard (probably college campuses and activist organizations) this may be true, but general usage is much broader than that. Books are a trailing indicator, but show how the terms are being used now on a much broader front, and what I see is LGBT being used about ten times more frequently than LGBTQ, with usage of the latter term increasing more rapidly than usage of the former. If that trend continues unabated, then LGBTQ will one day overtake LGBT in general usage, but we're not at that point yet. In particular, how the term is used on college campuses may be a sign of what's coming, but Wikipedia itself is a trailing indicator not a crystal ball, and needs to support claims based on reliable secondary sources, not on the latest buzz. Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What a fucking moronic sentence. Fix it. 80.146.191.154 ( talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGBT has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
QUILTBAG acronym—incomplete definition. The reason for this edit should be obvious.
Please change: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." to: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." ADKINSKB ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Section needs to be edited, right? There are a lot of community disagreements about whether or not asexual and intersex people are inherently LGBT, with members of those communities sometimes asking to be excluded. Especially wrt intersex people, who feel that biology should not coerce them into identifying as trans. Here's a source This page should be updated to reflect the disagreement around those issues, rather than just assume inclusion. Apremonition ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Student 1: Bryannie Bach
Bryanniebach ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Bryanniebach
Why is this the description of LGBT??? Somepersonwholivesinahouse ( talk) 6:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead section does show the importance of the topic, then goes right into the history. I do see how this is a history article, but the view is skewed slightly positively and does address people who have disagreed on the topic. The sections are very well balanced, giving a little more length to the history, and less to the other sections explaining is a great way to organize. I do think that there are a lot of quotes in the article that could instead be summarized. Maybe combining the Other Variants section with the Alternative Terms section would allow for expansion in this category. I would also like to see how this term differs around the world and when it sparked up, since others on the Talk page have been discussing how it is used as a different variation in Canada. Terir ( talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)terir
This photo (officially released by US Navy) shows two lesbian females belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in LGBT article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of LGBT, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by LGBT can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.196.137 ( talk) 06:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)