Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Alerts Showcase

Requested move at Talk:Homosexuality in English football § Requested move 16 August 2026

An editor has requested that Homosexuality in English football be moved to LGBTQ people in English football, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Heterochromia (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Mass additions to project scope

Hi @TAnthony:, over the past couple days, you have added thousands of articles, categories, and files to the WikiProject’s scope. The majority of additions are constructive, but some appear to have little or no relevant content. The pace and scope of the additions makes it very challenging to review the additions in any comprehensive way (and has overloaded the Assessment Report that can normally be used to review additions and removals from the project scope). Can you provide some insight into your methodology and how you are selecting these articles?--Trystan (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I was dubious about that editor's addition of Category talk:American Godzilla films to this project, until I realized that Godzilla is a Lizard God Breaking Tokyo Quickly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. There are a vast amount of files and articles in LGBTQ-related categories that have not been tagged into the project. My initial run was film posters and book covers, and now I've moved on to film, TV and character articles. There have been some subcategories that have turned out to be a little broad in scope and I've tried to revert bad edits and refine the scope. I did revert the Godzilla edit you referenced (and several others) when I realized my AWB run had gone off the rails. Can you let me know about any other specific issues you've seen? I think my latest run has been dialed down to strictly LGBTQ categories but I appreciate the input. I certainly don't want to be disruptive. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 06:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thousands w/ only a few mistakes? Wicked good work then :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we know what the daily limit is that won't crash the Assessment Report? Or, perhaps more importantly, that is manageable for those who monitor and review new additions? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the limit is, but the report seems to have recovered, and is now showing the addition of 4,114 articles on August 22 and 1,209 articles on August 23. (It just shows those two days, but earlier dates can still be viewed in the history.)

As the articles are being added based on category, it might be worth considering whether, as a long-term project, a systematic review of those categories should be undertaken. There are a lot of LGBTQ-related categories that have been applied very broadly, so could use a review of their contents to determine if both the category (per WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF) and the WikiProject tag (per WP:LGBTQ+/Scope) are warranted.

In some cases, we may want to consider whether the category has sufficient inherent connection to the WikiProject scope to warrant automatic inclusion. For example, Douglas Coupland is a gay author, but does that make all articles on his novels in-scope, if those articles themselves have no LGBTQ+ content? Similarly, Duck Soup (1927 film) is in Category:Cross-dressing in American films, but I would not consider the article in-scope for the WikiProject.--Trystan (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, and not something I'd thought much about before. It makes sense that the parent article Cross-dressing and various cross-dressing categories themselves are in-scope but I would think a good number of the articles within these categories are not. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Dolly Parton as a gay icon

I've started Dolly Parton as a gay icon, if any project members are interested in collaborating. Happy editing ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

 Kept --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Procedurally the withdrawal was improper because good faith merge votes other than the nomination were entered, making the AfD ineligible for speedy keep due to withdrawal. However, there was no chance in this ever resulting in a merge consensus, so there's no point to reopening. Katzrockso (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Victimization of bisexual women

I've nominated Victimization of bisexual women for renaming to Discrimination against bisexual women. Discussion here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Starting work on Draft:Grindr: The Opera

Just started work on Draft:Grindr: The Opera. Any further eyes on this would be appreciated, thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

"Lesbian domestic violence" versus "Lesbian sex"

I noticed that the article on Lesbian sexual practices was moved to Sexual practices between women, whereas Domestic violence in lesbian relationships has not been changed. The two opening sentences of the article on "Sexual practices between women" do not use the word "lesbian", whereas the opening two sentences of "Domestic violence in lesbian relationships" mention both "lesbian relationships" and "lesbian battering". I would question the symmetry of explicitly referring to lesbian violence, but shying away from referring to lesbian sex. Why the discrepancy? I would think either the sexual practices article be titled "Lesbian sexual practices" again or the article on lesbian domestic violence be named something like "Domestic violence in relationships between women". Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding onto the symmetry issue, I noticed that domestic violence between gay men are solely covered under sections in Domestic violence and Domestic violence in same-sex relationships. Is there really that much more that can be said about domestic violence between women to warrant a standalone article? Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 13:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a very good point that there is no article on Domestic violence in gay relationships. Either there should be one, or perhaps this article on lesbian domestic violence may not be warranted. I would add that there is a myth, sometimes promoted in anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ circles, that lesbians are wildly and disproportionately violent. Some of this misinformation is connected to research showing high rates of violence lesbians have experienced from partners, but some of these studies include the past male partners of previously closeted lesbians. This research then gets cherry-picked/distorted into the claim that lesbians are more violent. I haven't examined the lesbian domestic violence article closely enough to say, but I would hope that Wikipedia would not (even unintentionally) reinforce an anti-lesbian bias through a disproportionate emphasis on lesbian violence or misreadings of statistical data. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm. There is some apparent asymmetry here and I'm unsure whether or not it's warranted. Lesbian sexual practices was moved to Sexual practices between women without discussion in January 2024, to match the title of the sister article Sexual practices between men. Both articles define the scope as covering these practices regardless of [...] sexual orientation. Both articles discuss bisexual people. The men's article is written to focus on men who have sex with men (MSM) whereas the women's article substantially discusses lesbians. I copied the text of the body of each article into a word processor and did a text search (⌘+F). In Sexual practices between women, lesbian appears 26 times and bisexual appears just 6 times, always in the phrases lesbian or bisexual women or lesbian and bisexual women. Women who have sex with women (WSW) is appears 2 times. In Sexual practices between men, MSM is used 7 times, men who have sex with men appears 2 times, and gay and bisexual appear 6 times each, usually as gay and bisexual men or gay or bisexual men. The women's article could be retitled to match the overall focus on lesbians although I'm not sure excluding bisexual women and other WSW is the ideal move. I have not reviewed the sources but based on the citations and article's content, it does appear that most sources used discuss lesbians specifically. As for the domestic violence article, it also substantially focuses on lesbians. Obviously, bisexual women, pansexual women, and other women who do not identify as lesbians can experience and inflict domestic violence or intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships. However, it is unsurprising that most of these women and their relationships are understood as lesbian and that sources cover the issue this way. I don't have a conclusion here. I think the current article titles situation is justifiable but may or may not be optimal. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae The "Sexual practices between men" article was itself moved from "Gay sexual practices", apparently because editors thought "gay" might be too vague because it might include gay women (lesbians)...although in that case, why not rename it Gay male sexual practices? I would say that in daily speech and in writing as well, terms such as "lesbian sex" or "lesbian relationship" are references to the gender configuration of the act or partnership rather than having anything to do with the self-identification of the individuals. It would be strange to most people to say "Those two men are married, but they have never had gay sex with each other, because they both identify as bisexuals". Ditto, two bi women dating each other would be two bi women in a lesbian relationship. To me, it would be an unusual usage of language to say that behavior or desire or relationships are not or cannot be described as gay or lesbian. The article on Lesbian kiss episodes is about two women kissing, not how the fictional characters identify. So I'm unsure why or how the terms "Lesbian kiss", "Lesbian sex", or "Lesbian relationship" exclude bi women. They seem like perfectly inclusive terms to me. Beyond that, I'd also ponder if avoiding terms like "gay" or "lesbian" in favor of something else like "same-sex" could potentially dovetail with the sort of conservatism that prefers a term like "people with same-sex attractions" rather than simply saying gay/lesbian/bi/homosexual/etc. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a complex issue. The term "men who have sex with men" was developed in the 1990s for the explicit purpose of focusing on behavior ("practices") rather than identity. It can feel overly clinical but it also serves a legitimate purpose and can be both more accurate and more inclusive. It's important not to use MSM and gay (men) interchangeably and not to shy away from talking about gay men when that is what is meant. I do think there can sometimes be an air of conservatism and homophobia in the use of this (and other) terminology, though I do not primarily view it that way. But ultimately conservatives and homophobes object to the "practices" and I don't think discussing them as such necessarily furthers their project. The term is widely used in medicine and other disciplines. On Google Scholar, I get 447,000 hits for "men who have sex with men" compared to just 8,250 for "women who have sex with women". I find Sexual practices between men to be the correct title for that article, both int terms of usage in sources and in terms of the article's own framing and content. I don't mean to shift the focus from women to men; I raised this only as part of an extended consideration of symmetry (or WP:CONSISTENCY) across multiple articles and because it was directly relevant to the history of the title of Sexual practices between women. As for your other points, I agree that "gay sex" or "lesbian kiss" can be used in everyday language to describe scenarios where one or more parties is not gay or lesbian. I also understand why some people may object to this, for example on the grounds of monosexism and bisexual erasure, or simply on the grounds that it is not strictly accurate in a given context. In writing an encyclopedia, it is important to use language that is sufficiently precise, accurate, and aligned with both the coverage in reliable sources and the actual scope of our article. And as for lesbian kiss episodes, I understand this to be the accepted name (WP:COMMONNAME) for this trope. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae It has been my impression that the reason researchers use "MSM" is due, at least in large part because there are men who (often for reasons of homophobia and machismo) adamantly reject being labelled as gay or bisexual despite engaging in homosexual or bisexual behavior. That might make sense when conducting a survey of MSMs, but that doesn't necessarily indicate we should shy away from using the terms gay, homosexual, or bisexual on Wikipedia in other contexts. My immediate impression of the idea that bisexuals would object to terms like "Gay relationship or "Lesbian relationship" (which don't have Wikipedia articles, but probably should) is that the idea appears idiosyncratic...is there any written source indicating that any bisexuals object to terms like "lesbian sex" or "gay kiss" or "gay relationship"? I have not personally met any bisexuals with this opinion. One concern I have is that sensational, stereotypical, or negative topics using gay and lesbian terminology such as Domestic violence in lesbian relationships or Lesbian bed death or Lesbian kiss episode or U-haul lesbian or Lesbian pornography rarely seem to provoke any discussion of applicability or inclusivity, but potentially positive topics or terms like Lesbian sex or apparently "Lesbian relationship" might be called into question. Nor have I seen any objection that sensationalistic or derogatory topics such as Gay bowel syndrome , Gay bathhouse, Chickenhawk (gay slang), Trade (gay slang), or Troll (gay slang) might exclude bisexual men, nor that classifying Category:Non-fiction books about pederasty under Category:Gay non-fiction books might unfairly exclude bi men. So why the discrepancy or selectivity? The Lesbophobia article was moved to Discrimination against lesbians. Butch (lesbian slang) was moved to Butch (slang) and Dyke (lesbian) was moved to Dyke (slang). The removal of terms like "lesbian" or lesbian terminology like "lesbophobia" does seem selective. So I'm worried that positive lesbian content or pro-lesbian content is often euphemized or de-lesbianized, whereas negative and fetishistic content retains the term "lesbian" more prominently and without being contested. We should absolutely try to improve BTQIA+ visibility on Wiki, and I've added a ton of categories and content related to the -BTQIA+ segments of the LGBTQIA+ community, but we should be careful to not reinforce homophobia or lesbophobia while doing so, even if incidentally or accidentally. Inclusion should also apply to gay men and lesbians and to gay/lesbian/homosexual relationships, love, affection, desire, and sex as well. I'm not saying you are arguing to the contrary, but that is my concern about the effect of certain terminology rather than intent necessarily. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to these issues although I have a range of opinions on these article titles individually. I don't necessarily want to dissect each of them individually here but some of them are WP:COMMONNAME titles, some are appropriate disambiguation per our usual practices, and some of these should probably be disambiguated differently or otherwise may need a second look. There was recently a discussion at Talk:Discrimination against asexual people#Requested move 9 August 2026, where the question of whether Biphobia should be retitled was raised. I do think there is a meaningful difference between Lesbian sexual practices and Sexual practices between women. I think a case can be made for Lesbian sexual practices given the article's content. I'm not convinced it's a better title but I don't think the concern is unreasonable. As for "MSM", I'm aware of the history. I roll my eyes when I hear it in some contexts but generally, as a gay man, it doesn't bother me and again I find it to be the better title for that article. And as you know, I am aware of some of your efforts to improve coverage of bisexual topics and have supported them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to make one more point: I do not think the titles of Sexual practices between men and Sexual practices between women necessarily need to be consistent. Precisely because "MSM" is a widely used and written about term, there is a very strong justification for writing the men's article that way. The women's article is substantially about lesbians, which may warrant a different title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae I'm unclear as to what the distinction between Lesbian sexual practices and Sexual practices between women might be? Would you mind elaborating? As for the subject of anti-bisexual discrimination, could "Biphobia" be a section of a wider article about Discrimination against bisexuals? Do we need two articles? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sexual practices between women who are not lesbians. I understand that some may call these "lesbian practices" even if not all who "practice" are lesbians. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

In this case is this the origin of the specific focus not of source origin? Domestic violence in lesbian couples has been subject to some specific social study, the sources themselves treat it as distinct when approaching it as a topic for study. The article itself is not exactly a stub. The name change to bring it in line with other articles would need to outweigh a risk of separating the primary terminology in the article. I don't see any overwhelming issue with just renaming it inline as "Domestic violence in relationships between women" or something to that end though.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lesbian Space Princess

 You are invited to join the discussion either here or here on whether any content about the recent social media response to the film, which falls within the scope of this WikiProject, is notable or encyclopedic, and whether it should be added to the page's reception section or not. Your comments would be deeply appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Hi,

Season's greetings, I am User:Bookku. I initiate and support update in information and knowledge gap areas on WP wherever whenever possible. Time to time, also invite other users in draft/ article expansion work for diversity in inputs.

Presently working on a feminist auto-biography draft in my user space User:Bookku/Holy Woman: a divine adventure. Authors outlook seems some inclination towards this project's topics.

Requesting interested users to visit the draft article User:Bookku/Holy Woman: a divine adventure and provide article expansion help if you find topic interesting.

Bookku (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Jason Pirro

Hi all

I've made a start on a draft for Jason Pirro, an out trans man who was the personal assistant, chauffeur and friend to Dolly Parton decades. I've collated sources here User:John Cummings/Articles/Jason Pirro and there seem to be enough sources to write an article. If anyone would like to collaborate on the draft or simply take over and publish it you'd be more than welcome :)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't have the energy to draft, but I added a 1990 newspaper source to your list. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this article; I've expanded it a bit. Funcrunch (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

This might also make for a good Did you know. Funcrunch (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Input request at Gay bashing

Input is welcome on a merge proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay bashing.--Trystan (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Biphobia article is unbalanced

As I've previously addressed in the debate about the Gay bashing article here, the article on Biphobia currently has a wildly disproportionate focus on biphobia from pansexuals, gay men, lesbians, and various feminist writers, but does not mention heterosexual male perpetrators of violence even once. It does not mention FBI stats about hate crimes motivated by "anti-bisexual bias" either. There's mention of biphobic gay men keeping bi men closeted and how gay men are "even more oppressive than traditional heteronormativity", but no mention of closeted bi men with bi/homophobic female partners. One might walk away from reading the article thinking that the oppression of bisexuals is primarily or equally caused by mean-spirited queers and feminists alongside heterosexual men (and women). Much of the article is about validity, stereotypes, whether bi men can get dates, whether pansexuals consider bisexuals transphobic, etc. There is some coverage of more...life and death matters?...in the section on the Effects of biphobia (violence, HIV, poverty, etc). I would suspect that many bisexuals would be somewhat more averse to being murdered or becoming the victim of domestic violence or being denied refugee status than over whether, say, a lesbian makes the accusation that "that bisexuals are privileged". Does this article currently paint an accurate portrait of the experience of bisexuals? I would say no. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean you are going to have to have perspective about FBI statistics hate crimes motivated by "anti-bisexual bias" though. A cursory search indicates that these are reported in FBI statistics as a small minority fraction of sexual orientation bias hate crime incidents at 1.5%? With Bisexual people being a functional plurality of people identifying other than heterosexual. In the same factsheet "anti-heterosexual bias" is 1.4% of sexuality related hate crimes. It could absolutely merit inclusion, some people may not be aware that people are victims of specifically biphobic hate crimes at all. Don't get me wrong I don't want to minimise discrimination against bisexual people, just the opposite, I think that placing the emphasis in the wrong place might be confusing. Ironically the biggest standout missing element is that the intersectional perspectives section doesn't have anything on their intersection with mainline gay groups' discrimination concerns.

Biphobia being the set of discriminations on basis specifically of bisexuality it's worth keeping some proportion that in practical terms bisexuals may be more or less likely to experience discrimination that can be reasonably classed as homophobia as well as and in intersection with biphobia. The article's focus on discrimination types comparatively unique to bisexuality is understandable, and some of the most notable examples are the ones you have pointed out. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Antisymmetricnoise Do we need a standalone article on biphobia? Why not simply have an article on Discrimination against bisexuals, which would include info about biphobia as well as all other manifestations of harm to bisexuals including homophobia/lesbophobia? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I see in the vein of the lesbophobia article, not the worst idea. That page opens by immediately using the "also known as lesbophobia", so it's mostly a semantic thing. That article oddly is not linked anywhere on the Lesbian page only the Homophobia page. The page homosexuality for example subsets Heterosexism and Homophobia. Bisexuality subsets Biphobia and Bisexual erasure. The idea here is that the main article for the sexuality has a summary of the various forms of discrimination and the forms which are notable enough for their own article get one.

Biphobia itself is notable enough that it clearly warrants an article. The main question is would this "Discrimination against bisexuals" have enough new material to not just be Biphobia? Biphobia section that ends up being forced to link to a standalone Biphobia article especially if the Biphobia article expands in the future. Conversely to your question about needing a standalone article do the other forms of discrimination against bisexuals merit a standalone article or is it suitably covered in the Discrimination section of bisexuality? That sections very first statement is about bisexuals experiencing general Homophobia and linking to the Homophobia article within which the relevant information is kept, then moving on to talk about the additional forms of discrimination. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops embarrassing. Misspoke when I said plurality of people identifying as non-heterosexual. They tend to be be present at approximately the same rate as homosexual people with pretty wide variance to which all sexuality demographic reporting is prone. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Fs seems unbalanced when compared to reality, but possibly not when compared to literature (WP reflects literature not truth etc)? Not sure re scholarship but at least in lay convos/literature/news mostly biphobia seems to be used for bi erasure, dating stereotypes/etc (as opposed to homophobia used for violent attacks, etc, prolly even when victim is bi rather than gay :/). Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I do see your point that exclusively terming more sever incidents as Homophobia and "milder" ones as biphobia would be unbalanced, but is that what is happening? We would need a source that differentiates the actual events providing some level of context to frequency.

Is a bias incident that happens to a bisexual victim a biphobia event even if the motivating bias was not biphobia? Surely not. Surely a straight person can be a victim of a homophobic attack right? And conversely an assault on a minority is not a hate crime unless it's motivated by a specific bias, it's just the crime of assault. Often biphobia specifically refers TO the complex interplay between homophobia, heterophobia, stereotypes etc that bisexual people experience. But if bisexuals were more likely to experience hate crimes on straightforward homophobic grounds by a substantial margin, or the reverse, it would not make sense to ignore that. It's likely that the assumption that this is true is being made implicitly rather than with evidence though. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

With the FBI anti-bisexual hate crime stats, it would be my assumption that they are reporting "on crimes motivated by prejudice" against perceived or actual bisexuals and not simply listing victims who are bi (such as a bi victim of a homophobic hate crime). I wouldn't necessarily say that homophobia against bisexuals is always more severe and that biphobia is "milder"...it seems to be the case that a lot of the heterosexual male violence against their bi women partners is tied up in a complex mix of anti-bisexual and generally anti-homosexual/anti-LGBTQ sentiment in combination with misogyny, and can certainly be quite harmful. So it gets complicated and murky, but I do think bi-related articles should be clearer that homophobia/biphobia from heterosexuals is "more systemic" and statistically more violent and is certainly a greater numerical threat compared to the much smaller gay/lesbian/pan population who, for example, do not commit the majority of battering and stalking against bi women and who lack the numbers and institutional power to enact anti-LGBTQ or anti-bi legislation and government policy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The reporting methodology you speculate has been my assumption as well though when I looked for the methodology section I could not discern that detail in full. For something to be registered here as a hate crime it has to lead to an actual criminal charge for one of those listed crimes. In general I don't want to lean too heavily on those but when you raised it as a point that the article was unbalanced because it did not give weight to certain major and severe sources of discrimination against bisexual people by over focusing on a specific set. The current bisexual article opens it's section on discrimination with a short point on bi people experiencing homophobia as given, before moving on, the weight here relies on the homophobia article applying it's own information about the severity and sources of discrimination to bi people. Even here you have to can together homophobia/biphobia to posit that homophobia/biphobia from heterosexuals is "more systematic and statistically more violent". I understand your issue with the framing, but the article on biphobia is correctly putting into focus concerns that bisexual people experience as unique/intersectional to their bisexuality, which have been discussed in sources under the name "Biphobia".

If there is something missing from the discussion or framing vis-a-vis more severe threats by all meansadd. This discussion could be made easier by a draft. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Asdfjrjjj Well, that goes to show that the term biphobia is insufficient to properly describe the sum-total marginalization of bisexuals. That's just one facet of what the bi community experiences. It does seem like a lot of bi activist literature and scholarship goes on at great length about how gays and lesbians and pansexuals and feminists are rude and bigoted, while significantly underreporting harms done by heterosexual men and women including violence and structural oppression like law and policy. Although perhaps part of this bias could be corrected for if we had a general article on Discrimination against bisexuals that would have a more inclusive and balanced scope. I've also seen the term binegativity used, but I'm not sure what the exact definition is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Fs couldn't agree more! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Men and Women / Sexuality

There are currently articles about Gay men, Lesbians, Trans men, and Trans women. There are no articles about Bisexual men, Bisexual women, Intersex men, Intersex women, Asexual men or Asexual women, nor are there general articles on LGBTQ men or LGBTQ women. Or perhaps Men in the LGBTQ community / Women in the LGBTQ community would work? While I'm at it, we have an article about Transgender sexuality, but not about Intersex sexuality or Non-binary sexuality. Some of these articles might not have enough sources at the moment, but at least a few of them could definitely be standalone articles. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Not to discourage you from starting a draft, but I don't think many of these topics necessitate standalone articles. I doubt there is enough unique content to write about (e.g.,) bi women specifically that wouldn't fit in a section of Bisexuality.

An article about Intersex men/women is likely to be particularly fraught because each groups include intersex people both AMAB and AFAB, so any medical content (e.g., explaining specific DSDs) would need to be fully duplicated across both articles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

These are good points, especially with respect to intersex people. We should consider whether there is enough unique content to support separate articles but also what is the most coherent, accurate, and reader-friendly way to present the information on these subjects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders Articles for bi men and bi women, along the lines of Gay man and Lesbian strike me as the most obvious to source. There is a large amount of literature dedicated specifically to bi men or bi women, who often face quite different issues. A cursory search on Google Scholar or Google Books certainly indicates so. There are 143,000 hits for "bisexual men" on Google Scholar and 40,800 for "bisexual women". On Google Books, there are various books dedicated to specifically bi men or bi women. Gendered articles for intersex and asexual people might be harder to source, but I don't see why the topic of Men in the LGBTQ community or Women in the LGBTQ community wouldn't be notable topics with plenty of sources. Google Scholar has 259 hits for Non-binary sexuality, which seems to be an understudied topic...although maybe for now there could be a section on Sexuality within the main Non-binary article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

With regards to categories for intersex individuals. For Intersex categorisation particular care must be taken to differentiate between individuals who may be reliably sourced as having Intersex characteristics, and those who identify as intersex with prevalence being given to self-identification. This is to primarily avoid individuals who have some intersex related identity but who do not identify under the intersex label from being mislabelled. It's good to see that so far included articles in the intersex sexuality categories take this into account, but if more people use the tag it feels like it's a risk of intersex being used as a superseding label. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Bareback sex

Recent changes to the lead of our bareback sex article have changed it to refer exclusively to men who have sex with men, significantly changing the lead from its previous version. Posting here for community input on this change. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting one. Pretty odd reasoning presented. Reverted with grounds in description. The paper cited cites 4 other papers at least 3 of which were written by the same sources. They may not be using the common name but rather a jargon version of the word specific to their research.

The word Barebacking is now found in major mainline dictionaries and uses the pre-edit definition. So the edit is clearly incorrect as submitted. Need to consider changing updating from the Old New Partridge dictionary to an up to date dictionary definition. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It should stay broader - we need an article on condomless sex that covers the broader phenomenon, what title it lives under is less important. Katzrockso (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

As per the lede barebacking refers to a more specific subcategory of unprotected sex which is covered under the safe sex article. It is a slang term with traction in academia. The article is well balanced between these concerns. The etymology section explores the term well. The edits, while assumed to be good faith, were ill considered. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, and for making a post on the article's talk page discussing the issue. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The article as written does fail slightly to clearly represent the terminology difference between that academic use of bareback/barebacking but someone else can add that and it would have to be done with consideration for undue weight. When you try to search the term bareback, it can be difficult to find any immediate source that refers to anything but gay sex, or anything but anal sex at minimum.

This makes it easy to believe that the term is shifting in meaning simply by dearth of sources opposing. It does almost seem as though that sweep of papers studying barebacking as a social phenomenon has had a knock on effect where the only articles that show up are ones based on that. And I have even seem a small spray of random sources from sexual health resources (charities, government health websites) present a false etymology saying the term originates from said gay sex movement. But on average sexual health resources are the ones most likely to refer to the term simply as "sex without a condom", likely because they are more likely to deal in straight and gay sex concerns.

The dictionaries essentially have the right of it. The colloquial use of bareback still works as they define, because the "riding bareback" etymology is natural innuendo, and would be self derived by a fluent English speaker. The etymology in the wikipedia article seems to be more accurate than that presented without earlier sources claiming it originates with the 90s gay phenomenon. Huebert et al's findings are unsurprising but they are not the only study to survey gay and bisexual men about the meaning of the term "barebacking". Other papers appear to have surveyed members of the barebacking community specifically, and as such they sometimes got even narrower definitions from bugchasing risk communities like "anal sex without a condom between HIV positive men". Bauermeister and Carballo-Diéguez et al. 2009 appear to define barebacking that way, but cited Huebner et al. 2006 without additional commentary. A strange behaviour and a good example of why the editor using 3 of their papers to push a singular definition is unsound. Read out of context these papers would certainly lead to a confusing idea of what the words mean.

Another good example paper that discusses the definitions of bareback sex and the distinction between the academic and colloquial use: Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I associate the term with anal sex between (gay) men. There is usually context that makes this meaning or the extended meaning clear. The article can be expanded or updated, which may result in a reframing of the lead. The article in its current state strikes me as appropriate although I have not done my own review of sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm thinking about it carefully. I wonder if "bareback sex" meaning only "intentional sex without condom" as a concept is notable enough to merit it's own article outside safe-sex with the article. The article could be restructured and retitled to more clearly refer to the "barebacking" phenomenon which seems to have received a LOT of academic and public attention and even in the lede is implied to be the main focus of the article. I have just realised that's what the lede change could have been trying to do in a way that made the effect muddy and inaccurate. The etymology section would stay the same, showing how the word came to be and was adopted as a term for a phenomenon, and there would be mention of that in the lede to make it clear that this is not referring to the common colloquial slang term "bareback" and it's derivatives. I am loath to do it myself though purely because it feels like it would be agony to find the correct weight given the papers which spend their entire length asking questions about what the term means. The sources would have to do the heavy literature or synthesising that balance would practically be original research and I haven't seen any I could use. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Review request for a backlog COI edit at Talk:Bill Oberst Jr.

I am Bill Oberst Jr., the subject of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Oberst_Jr. article. Following Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, I submitted a formal COI edit request on the article's talk page two weeks ago to add a brief, reliably sourced "Personal Life" section regarding my identity as a gay Christian.

The request is currently sitting in a heavy backlog queue. Because this involves LGBT identity, I wanted to politely invite any interested project members to review the request and the secondary sources provided. The full request can be found directly at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Oberst_Jr.#h-Edit_Request:_Addition_of_Personal_Life_section-20260901113100.

Thank for very much your time and your volunteer Wikipedia service. Bill Oberst, Jr. (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I have addressed the request (in general, not filling the request to-the-letter). Others are encouraged to review, expand, correct, and send me brownies. (But not for a few weeks, I promised the doc I'd lose some pounds.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Bill Oberst Jr. – Direct link to the correct title. I will create the redirect Bill Oberst Jr. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)