Wikipedia talk:No queerphobia

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

1. Raladic (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I am more than glad to endorse this essay. My compliments to the author on how well it is composed. Obviously, queerphobia/homophobia should be eradicated from Wikipedia, as every other form of discrimination. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Loki (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Skimel (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I endorse the content of Special:Permalink/1221239371 as a Wikipedia namespace essay. Expression of queerphobic beliefs is a form of identity-based hate that prevents some volunteers and would-be volunteers from contributing. The essay gives examples that would constitute personal attacks. Some examples it lists are fringe among medicine or academic disciplines (such as philosophy). Editing with a view incompatible with Wikipedia's position on science and fringe topics can be a 'competence is required' issue. — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
6. ElleAnónime (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I endorse it in its rough shape; like with all things, I think there are particulars to fine-tune to make it maximally clear and useful. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
8. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
9. Endorse as written by this timestamp. I have read the entire essay, and I encourage others who have expressed opinions or sentiments without completely reading the essay to read it too. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
10. I've waited for the rough edges to be shaven off through collaborative editing, but now that they largely have been, and the essay is starting to crystallise a bit more, I'll happily endorse. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Discrimination in any way, shape or form has no place in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. ~Δ _{(delta • t • c)} 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
12. I believe that this is a helpful essay which can assist editors who have good intentions, but who lack detailed familiarity with LGBT topics, to recognise and deal with common forms of disruptive anti-LGBT editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
13. Useful, the ratiocination satisfies quality. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
14. As the original author, it would be surprising if I didn't endorse it. More to the point, its controversy proves its utility: Don't be bigoted to the LGBTQ community on Wikipedia or use Wikipedia as a tool to denigrate us - that is inappropriate and has consequences per Wikipedia's rules should be, for lack of a better phrase, fucking obvious. The immediate uproar accusing an essay about that simple concept going too far shows how sorely it's needed. From my experience, and those of other queer editors I know, there is a long-standing problem with those who denigrate LGBT people through dogwhistles and CPOV-pushing of FRINGE nonsense getting a pass for stopping short of slurs. It's caused many to at least consider leaving the project rather than deal with it. I myself have procrastinated writing this essay almost since I joined Wikipedia, not only to steel myself for the uproar it would cause but because I wondered if the essay is fundamentally untrue and WP:Some Queerphobia would have been a better title in terms of both honesty and satire. For too long, Wikipedia has allowed anti-LGBT views and misinformation and those who promote them to create a toxic environment. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seemed like a good place to start. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

    I have re-considered my endorsement per the second half of the above comment. Please refer to my non-endorsement below - this essay runs the risk of misleading its readers to believe queerphobia isn't tolerated on Wikipedia, when the opposite is the case. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Taking a break from work to clarify: I endorse this essay wholeheartedly in its ideals and pointing out how, per Wikipedia's policies, queerphobia is not tolerated. I cynically (and indeed sarcastically) dis-endorsed it on the basis that, per Wikipedia's practice, it is. I contain multitudes and just hope one day the basic shit in the essay isn't so "controversial". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

15. I endorse the essay with preference for this version of it. Although Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is correct in observing that queerphobia is tolerated, defended, and even celebrated on Wikipedia (by vaster portions than I think some of endorsers might realize), I disagree with the (possibly sarcastic?) conclusion that the essay does more harm than good in its outlining of how Wikipedia says it works and ought to work, as opposed to how it really works. We haven't deleted WP:5P4 despite rampant violations of it yet, and the Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct exists even if it's flagrantly disregarded by rogue projects. Better to have this essay as a standard for Wikipedia to live up to rather than not have it. A WP:Some Queerphobia essay as advice to editors facing queerphobia (warning them that queerphobia is rampant and often unaddressed) could be useful, but I wouldn't want that essay to be a straight-up concession to queerphobia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

    ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Hydrangeans.

16. A useful essay discussing another aspect of the general bigotry editors on Wikipedia have to face from other editors. The fact that such essays are needed (and how vociferous and angry the response is to them) is both sad and representative of such issues. The wording of some of the non-endorsers below and why they oppose this essay is really...telling about themselves, I have to say. Silverseren^C 01:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
17. Apparently I neglected to endorse this previously; apologies for that oversight. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
18. Snokalok (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
19. w^{L<speak·check>} 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
20. Bigots are not welcome. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
21. Endorse the version as of this moment. Though I suspect at some point in the future we'll have an interesting discussion when an uncontentious member of this community links their Wikipedia identity to one that is Queerphobic elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 09:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
22. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
23. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
24. Relm (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
25. Of course! --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
26. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
27. As a queer person, I endorse this essay. There are some common narratives on display here that I find outdated for personal reasons (e.g. the idea that being queer isn't at all a choice [or to put it another way–the idea that it matters whether or not being queer is a choice]), but I fully understand and respect the intent, and I do think an essay like this is necessary. – MW_(t•c) 03:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
28. Endorse Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
29. wish people actually listened pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 01:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
30. Endorse. Wikipedia should not welcome bigots whose understanding of biology stopped in the 4th grade.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
31. Endorse as written. Given the alarming, and rapidly increasing, number of bigots that hold actual power in our current global society, specifically on this very topic, I find it imperative that a website such as Wikipedia, which purports to follow scientific consensus and basic respect for human rights in its knowledge-sharing mission, continues to do so in practice. It must remain a practical, easily-accessible safeguard against the various assorted flavors of disinformation, anti-intellectualism, hate-mongering, and virulently inhumane, paranoid, reactionary myths that these groups of people recycle in each and every time period to target their demographic of choice. NewBorders (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
32. I endorse this and all hypothetical future versions of this essay. Hate is fundamentally incompatible with the project and the community. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
33. Endorse per Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Khajidha, NewBorders, RoxySaunders, and others. Wikipedia calls itself the free encyclopedia, but it cannot be free (as in "freedom") if it is not open to all who are willing and able to contribute to it. Excluding people for their sexuality, gender identity, or really any personal characteristic, does harm not only to those we are excluding, but also to the project itself. Doing so would be deliberately creating a systemic bias in favor of the forces of bigotry. Queerphobia drives out good people because of their identity, and allows misinformation to fester. While I am receptive to at least some of the criticisms about the exact verbiage of this essay, I think it would be a significant step in the right direction of being tolerant towards everything except intolerance. 80.62.117.143 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
34. Fuck LGBTQphobes! LGBTQ+ and Trans rights are human rights! 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈 --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Non-Endorsers

1. Wikipedia appears to be rapidly turning into a place with a very long list of people who are not welcome. Could we not just summarize it by saying anyone failing to subscribe to the current doctrines and orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata? FWIW, as long as WP:NOTPUNITIVE remains in force, I will not act against anyone whose beliefs I may disagree with, political or otherwise, unless their actual conduct on the project is disruptive. I for one find the recent trend in these essays deeply lamentable, and contrary to the spirit that I always assumed animated the project. (Still waiting for WP:No Communists.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Habitually oppose any "no <X group that has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia>" essays. Queen of ♡ | speak 07:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
3. While I do disagree with hating people, the line between hate and disagreement is far too blurry here. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
4. I guess I will say the same thing here I said at the MfD: The idea of having a specific WP:NONAZIS fork for sexuality is already dodgy, and of questionable utility (some people have already mentioned this). So maybe this essay is a great idea -- until you read it. The actual words written here are a political screed about how we need to purge editors who believe in "narratives" the author does not like. I've gone a hundred thousand edits under my real name without being asked about my sexual orientation, but sources close to JPxG say that all LGBT editors are not spoken for here. We should not have an essay asserting confidently that everyone who argued against its author in a MoS debate should be ejected summarily from the project. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a political thunderdome -- I am opposed to any outcome that involves any chance of people reading this and thinking that it represents official Wikipedia doctrine. jp×g🗯️ 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I agree with the spirit of what Ad Oreintem said. Personal attacks are already against the rules. The authors seem to be suggesting that, rather than banning people for personal attacks, people should be banned for personal beliefs. I strongly disagree. I guess this essay would be fine on the authors' individual Wikipedia userpages, as an expression of individual belief (like userboxes), but I think it's bizarre and counterproductive for it to be a published essay in this way, unless Wikipedia's attitude about essays is completely laissez-faire, and anything goes. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
6. I have often seen that, when online communities start pointing fingers against "evil" groups that must be removed from within them, the real problem is not actual hate but "Reductio ad Hitlerum" arguments. And I'm also aware that in the real world the alleged persecution of "hate" speech is actually used by dictatorships to silence their critics, such as here Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
7. I've been opposing the imposition of political correctness for decades, and have no reason to change my mind now. Orwell and Kafka might be proud of this essay which does a masterful job of declaring any and all language and arguments anybody might seek to use to support and defend positions in opposition to queer theory as "dogwhistles" of "far right" and "fringe" doctrines. In particular, it's quite a useful thing that one of the prime tenets of gender ideology is that there's no such thing as gender ideology; that nips any opposing arguments in the bud! The aim of Newspeak was to ensure that expression of dissident opinions was impossible due to all relevant words being either eliminated or redefined. Modern social-justice crusaders are making great progress at achieving this, particularly in the area of sex and gender. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

   ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Dtobias.

8. Bullet point 7 oF "Queerphobic beliefs" is particularly problematic: "That marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples." Such restrictions are supported by millions worldwide for religious reasons and are still the law of the land in many countries. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
9. As the original author, it would be surprising if I didn't endorse it, but here we are. This essay is hopelessly naive at best and nonsensical drivel that might hurt its readers at worst. It poses a serious risk that readers will take away the mistaken impressions that queerphobia is not tolerated on Wikipedia and that there are consequences to using Wikipedia as a soapbox to complain about LGBT people and our supposed agenda/ideology/etc. The essay should be deleted and redirected to WP:Some queerphobia, which would outline that the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people, otherwise all behavior and arguments are fine if couched in the barest threads of civility. As such, I cannot in good conscience endorse this essay since its central thesis, It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing guidelines to discipline editors for behavior indicative of queerphobia, is hopelessly idealistic and based off A) how Wikipedia says it works and B) how Wikipedia is supposed to work as opposed to C) how it actually works Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

   ↳ Replies moved to § Replies to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist.

10. While I would usually find myself supporting something like this in any other public forum, a line from the very first paragraph bothers me. "They disrupt the encyclopedia by promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBT editors." I'm a queer person, living in rural Scotland, and I have to say my pro-LGBT beliefs are the fringe viewpoint here, and it's probably still the same in most of the rest of the world. Wikipedia should always be based on a neutral point of view, whether that introduces queerphobic content or not. If this only applied to conduct on talk pages, for example (which would largely be unnecessary anyway with WP:NPA as noted above), I might be able to get behind it but from my reading it's also an attempt to police article content and promote a pro-LGBT agenda on Wikipedia. I might not like it, but the world is full of reliable sources with an anti-LGBT agenda and they shouldn't be maligned any more than reliable pro-LGBT sources. Also, while I'm gay I don't believe in gay marriage (it's a religious institution to me and should be left alone in favour of civil partnership) so this essay would have me labelled queerphobic. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Unnecessary fork per JPxG. ——Serial Number 54129 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
12. Yeah, queerphobes are bad, no, we shouldn't ban them unless they're violating other rules. Someone having a userbox that says they don't like gay marriage is not by itself disruptive or incivil and I don't see why we should attempt to make ourselves an echo chamber. AryKun (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
13. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
14. I regretfully can not support this as written. The "Queerphobic editors on Wikipedia frequently argue: ... That deadnaming or misgendering transgender subjects is necessary to preserve "neutrality", "the historical record", or "biological reality"." is a sticking point for me as it goes against MOS:GENDERID. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
15. Peter G Werner. I don't support any of the Wikipedia "No X" essays, which unfortunately seem to have been granted some kind of semi-official status on WP. In general, I'm opposed to Wikipedia's gradual but very definitely abandonment of the sound principal of WP:NPOV and toward a pronounced bias toward contemporary progressivism. And some of the things on the 'queerphobia' list are highly contentious - for example, the idea that it's bigotry to view some demands made by queer activist groups constitute "special rights". So if someone thinks that the general concept of non-discrimination does not include the right of a transwoman to participate in women's sports based on physical advantage, does having that view earn one the banhammer? You've now banned something like 70% of the American public, if that's the case. I could go on. I say, let anybody edit, and rules against point of view pushing, strict verifiability, against injection of fringe views into articles, and the rest should be sufficient to keep bigoted content out. But those rule should also be strictly enforced for progressives too, eg, the view that biological sex is a 'spectrum' for Homo sapiens has no place in an article on biology. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

    Adeendum: BTW, if one believes, as I do, that "queer", unlike lesbian, gay, or bi, is not a sexual orientation, nor even a gender identity, like transgender, but rather merely a subculture, like punk or hippie - does that make one "queerphoboic" and unsuited for editing Wikipedia? My own point of view is that I generally don't think people should be discriminated against for belonging to a subculture, but it doesn't have the same protections as an immutable sexual or racial characteristic. And, outside of Wikipedia editing and other places where I don't express my own point of view, I reserve the right to make fun of hippies, or emos, or queers insofar as an aspect of their subculture might be silly or cringe. Does this get me booted out by the 'queerphobia' police? Peter G Werner (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

16. Remove extreme leftist activists entirely from Wikipedia. They have infiltrated this site, occupied all the admin positions, and have turned this previously great website into a cheap propaganda platform for extreme leftist causes. This needs to be reversed and a way needs to be found to effectively prevent further such takeovers of the site in the future. Every single "controversial" political article has an extreme leftist bias, and people calling that out either have their contributions deleted, are told their sources aren't "reliable" (aka left-leaning), or are just outright banned by some leftist admin eventually. Just like with the allowed "sources", the enforcement of Wikipedia's rules is very often completely arbitrary, favoring obviously leftist/activist editors over sane and neutral ones. This essay is just another example of the countless things wrong with Wikipedia since activists have taken over the site. Wikipedia is not a platform for your propaganda (even if it's currently being abused as one). Billy7 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

    ↳ Continued at § Replies to Billy7.

17. Per BilledMammal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
18. I cannot endorse this essay in this state. While most of the points in this essay are valid and should be blockable (particularly on personal attacks, misgendering, and discriminatory policies), we should not be blocking people solely for interpreting LGBT topics in a way that deviates from the mainstream scientific consensus. According to this essay, the author of the lede of the Gender dysphoria would be blocked for writing that environmental factors after birth play a part in gender identity. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

    One of the authors here: None of what you claim is in the essay is actually in there. We don't argue people should be blocked for writing that environmental factors may be involved with gender identity and we don't argue people should be blocked for "interpreting LGBT topics in a way that deviates from the mainstream scientific consensus". We DO argue that consistent disruption from queerphobic POV-pushing should be taken to the relevant noticeboards, because like all forms of activism on here, at some point the community has to move in a more productive direction than re-litigating the same thing over and over and over. -Licks-rocks (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

19. This article seems to endorse a violation of WP:NPOV by conflating transphobia and homophobia with genuine concerns people may have about the treatment of minors, sporting fairness, or access to single-sex spaces defined by biological sex rather than gender identity, and then labeling all of this as 'queerphobia,' which could be seen as a Motte-and-Bailey strategy. This framing is unhelpful because it implies that legitimate questions are morally equivalent to bigotry, without explaining why they should be treated the same. It also risks being unhelpful rhetoric toward trans people, and relies on the fallacy of dismissing all concerns as rooted in moral failure instead of engaging in a fact-based discussion." Faronnorth (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Replies to endorsements/non-endorsements

To preserve the clarity of the bulleted lists above, threads responding to messages in the above section have been refactored into their own section. Further discussion and arguments should ideally be created down here (with appropriate links and links back). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the aim of these discussions? Are people trying to have a pseudo MfD discussion? TarnishedPath^talk 03:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Replies to Dtobias

Moved from Dtobias 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel compelled to respond to this comment since I was thinking a lot about Orwell when I wrote this essay. For example, it's hard to think of a better example than the Two Minutes Hate than those who feel compelled to rant about gender ideology, a perpetually undefined threat that a shadowy cabal are pushing to destabilize the world. Orwell would probably be laughing his ass off about people arguing that criticism of a doublespeak thought terminating cliche created by the Catholic Church to oppose feminism and transgender rights is actually the real Newspeak to silence dissent. The legislators arguing that children must be "protected" from knowing LGBT people exist "gender ideology" and teachers should be allowed to misgender transgender students with impunity are in fact the maligned freedom fighters, as opposed to the transgender people forced to flee the powerful authoritarian gender lobby! Those in power are weak, those without power are strong and dangerous, "gender ideology" exists and is coming to get you, and Emmanuel Goldstein is the enemy of the state :) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Jewish atheist, I have no interest in promoting the views of the Catholic Church or any other religion. But what else but an "ideology" can you call a set of beliefs about sex and gender that include such things as "Trans Women Are Women" (quite often used as a thought-terminating cliche, like when it's chanted mindlessly by activists trying to drown out all opposition), which is basically a supernatural belief in gendered souls that supposedly take precedence over the actual bodies of the people involved. It's disingenuous to claim one side of this culture war is "those in power" and one side is "those without power", as all sorts of people and institutions with political or cultural power have taken one or the other side (activists love to cite massive numbers of mainstream institutions on their side to buttress a claim that the other side is "fringe"), and the balance of power is ever-shifting and varies greatly in different places. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And as a vaguely muslim agnostic, I cannot help but point out you're promoting them anyways. Those most vocally opposing "gender ideology" are precisely those with "a supernatural belief in gendered souls that supposedly take precedence over the actual bodies of the people involved" (note how often its used to justify stripping people's bodily autonomy on the assumption their gendered soul should match their body). The existence of gender identity is empirical - the term was popularized by somebody who tried to prove that it didn't exist and failed spectacularly. Empirically speaking, people have an internal schema of their sex/gender that 1) does not perfectly map onto binary conceptions of men/women and 2) does not match their sex at birth - and the reason we know that is literally just because scientists have, for hundreds of years, tried to modify it without success before finally admitting they couldn't. The social construction of gender is feminism 101 - One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.

And please, don't mistake neo-liberal orthodoxy as support of queer people. The current neo-liberal idea of trans rights is "transition for adults who can afford it and for youth whose parents support them". It is not "get all these homeless trans kids safe homes"- I prefer the open disdain of the Church to such under-handed claims of allyship and centering of wealthy trans people. But if we're discussing people and institutions with political or cultural power, sure the UN has come out in support of trans rights, but nobody ever listens to them on anything. Various world health bodies have said "being trans isn't a mental illness, trust us, we tried that approach for decades and it failed" - because yeah, they tried and failed. On one hand, you have a demographic united only by immutable characteristics and a desire not be mistreated for them who are overwhelmingly working class or lumpenproletariat who have been classified as "mentally disordered" for hundreds of years. And some governments that pay lip service to the wealthier ones while ignoring the rest. On the other, you have those who actively disdain us all. There is no meaningful sense in which trans people, as a class, have power. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

old cows _{I don't think that idiom exists in English but I'm using it anyway--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)} The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Moved from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist 04:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused why you suddenly changed your mind (dunno if this was sarcasm, but your reconsideration comment in the endorsers section tells me you're serious), but if any sort of anti-anti-LGBT essay stays up, the current name certainly works better than your suggestion. "Some queerphobia" is just too vague of a title. The problem isn't that queerphobia is okay, because it obviously isn't; the problem is that the boundaries of that definition are very loose to some people. I agree that which would outline that the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people. It's what I had been trying to say throughout the whole deletion discussion before getting shot down by multiple editors; too many of the original beliefs listed were reasonable concerns (such as trans rights conflicting with feminism or religion; you can argue which side is correct, but they do in fact conflict) being grouped with actual homophobia/transphobia. Calling reasonable concerns "queerphobia" is just hate going the other way. That's why I removed said reasonable concerns; there certainly are some things that are queerphobic, but most of the content I removed from the list is commonly held in good faith. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't that queerphobia is okay, because it obviously isn't - I didn't say okay, I said tolerated. the problem is that the boundaries of that definition are very loose to some people. - fully agree, I've met very few people with queerphobic beliefs who'd consider themselves queerphobic or to be acting with malintent, and queerphobes often do have very loose definitions of it. We can't judge "what is queerphobia" off of "what do queerphobes think?"

the bar for being considered queerphobic is straight up using slurs or misgendering people, otherwise all behavior and arguments are fine if couched in the barest threads of civility - is a description of what a satirical essay on Wikipedia's tolerance of queerphobia in violation of its own policies would say, not a definition of it. That was not an invitation to change the essay to make it just say "that is the bar", it was an invitation to realize it's a stupid bar.

Interesting, loose definitions may include thinking that queerphobia targeted at children isn't queerphobia, that it's not queerphobic to say LGBT identities are a mental illness , that the gay agenda isn't a queerphobic dogwhistle, and That marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples is somehow not a queerphobic proposition by some truly Olympian mental gymnastics............... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you misinterpreted almost every single thing I said, it almost seems like you're assuming bad faith. You should really remove the "friendly" part of your username, because your comment is a very blatant personal attack towards me, and if you do that garbage one more time I may have to report you to ANI.

• I'll start with the one single thing you did not misinterpret in your comment above. I admit that the LGBT parenting bullet point was something I do think is homophobic; I removed it after seeing Ficaia's statement that the bullet point is problematic. I personally don't agree that that specific bullet is problematic, but I'd prefer if nothing on this essay was even potentially problematic, which is why I removed it. I'm not going to complain about that one being added back. I'll let Ficaia explain their viewpoint on this.
• The loose definitions of queerphobia were directed at editors who think that real medical debates should be called queerphobia, but you completely misinterpreted it as queerphobes having the loose definition with equally Olympian mental gymnastics. Like I said, you can argue if feminism or religion are correct to conflict with LGBT rights (although I'll disagree if you argue against feminism), but the fact is they do conflict, and both of those bullet points have no place in this essay, hence why they were removed, and hence why several editors struck their !delete votes when they were removed. I've been reading the Wikipediocracy commentary to this essay, and one person made a very good point that, before the removals, There's not a complete consensus on some of these things [being queerphobic beliefs] even among LGBT people.
• I do agree that saying there is a "gay agenda" could be considered queerphobic, but listing it in this essay is also leaning close to a personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on… political beliefs… directed against another editor or a group of editors (although it's not directed at anybody specific, it's clearly singling out groups of editors who believe in it as bigots who should be blocked) and per the essay guidelines, personal attacks aren't supposed to be in essays (hence why that list of anti-LGBT organizations was rightfully removed). It's also just a fact that the other bigotry essays don't single out at least ten pages like this. Even if you don't consider listing dogwhistle pages as a personal attack, it's still inconsistent with the other bigotry pages.
• You accuse me of saying that it's not queerphobic to say LGBT identities are a mental illness. I specifically state in that edit summary The whole article talks about mental health, and while "illness" probably is the incorrect term, it very much says that the mental health must be treated. Keyword, "illness is probably the incorrect term". Way to go with the full misinterpretation.
• Once again there is a loose definition of queerphobia by accusing me of thinking that queerphobia targeted at children isn't queerphobia. As I said before, it's also leaning close to a personal attack. As I and several others have mentioned many times, this is a real medical debate. As Barnards.tar.gz stated on the MfD, "genital surgery should not be prescribed to children"… is the legitimate recommendation of nearly every MEDORG. There is currently a major international debate in the medical literature (not just in polemical media articles) about the rights and wrongs of transgender healthcare, and there are broad ranges of opinions that aren't in the least bit hateful, yet are manifestly within the scope of what this essay brands as hate. Yes, I am now aware that you transitioned as a minor, which is likely why you feel so strongly about that particular loose equivalence to "queerphobia", and I completely understand your feelings toward it. However, the fact of the matter is that anything that is a real debate should not be listed as hate, lest it be used to shut down editors who are editing neutrally instead of outright picking a side. It's telling that the removal of that is what caused several editors to strike their !delete votes - it's because much of what the essay considered hate isn't actually hate, hence my statement of "loose definitions of queerphobia" before it was flipped around with equally Olympian mental gymnastics. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry but we're not going to relitigate this word salad. You should maybe read through some of the wikipedia pages in the list you tried to remove for not being similar enough to what's in WP:HID. Especially grooming conspiracy theory, mentions of which you tried to remove several times from the list of common beliefs because you didn't think they were queer-phobic enough. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, saying that I {{tq|tried to remove [the LGBT grooming conspiracy from the list] several times from the list of common beliefs] is just a completely false aspersion. I touched that bullet point once, and I didn't even remove it outright; I was merging it into a similar point. You are right that I removed it when I was removing the "sociological context", although that's because I was removing the whole section, not the conspiracy specifically, and it still remains in the bullet list; no matter your opinion on my edits, take a look at the other bigotry essays (No Nazis, No Racists, etc), and see how they do not single out a bunch on mainspace pages like this one does. How can I trust an editor who will make shit up about me and refuse to even discuss changes to a page? Yeah sorry but we're not going to relitigate this word salad makes it very clear that you are not open to discussing this, which is a problem for what is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Just like how you want me to cut it out with editing this page to not be so accusatory, cut it out with the false aspersions. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so you got rid of it twice, referring to it as "too controversial" the first time and "a personal attack" the second, you also mentioned it not being in other essays as a reason, which you just repeated here, so you don't disagree with that characterisation. It's not aspersions, it's just me mentioning a thing you did indeed do several times.

As for the part after that, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. And no. I am not required to answer every challenge, and I'm definitely not required to listen to you make comments or speculations about other editors' medical records and how that may or may not affect their editing. That is wildly inappropriate. I'm also not going to get into your ridiculous interpretation of what is and is not a personal attack, because honestly, I think it's a waste of time and energy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You're still making shit up about me. I literally just said I merged it the first time, and you're still accusing me of removing it outright; I did not outright remove it. It still remained, I just merged it into another bullet point because they were similar. The other removals in that edit were because they were too controversial, but that one you keep flogging me for was because of redundancy, not controversy. WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to you too. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on the first removal, but the other point in that edit you removed is arguably even stranger. I'm not even sure how you see that one as controversial. Anyway, here's you removing the point right next to it also against consensus. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finally seeing that I was merging that first bullet point instead of deleting it. I apologize for not seeing this comment before going to ANI. I stand by the removal of the litter box hoax point not only being controversial, but now that I know it is a specific case I think it deserves to stay gone, because it's way too specific. To tackle the core issue, as I stated, there are real debates regarding the safety of transgender surgeries for children. Anything about homosexual youth is fine, but when there are well sourced debates surrounding the safety of giving surgeries to transgender youth, I'd like to kill the risk of any legitimate discussions regarding that subject being shut down with an aspersion of "queerphobia", which a couple editors have proven to me will happen if that bullet point and any similar ones stay up. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so this one you appear to legitimately not be aware of: Transgender surgery is not done to children, only social transition. Medical transition is not usually started until after 16. It's also a multi-staged process, meaning they start with the most reversible stuff first and check at every step if the next step is warranted before proceeding. In most countries, you also need a specialist to sign off on it to even be eligible. This is a process that takes years, so even teenagers who start very early have plenty of time to reconsider, and surgery before adulthood is not generally done at all. (according to our own article "in rare cases may be performed on adolescents if health care providers agree there is an unusual benefit to doing so or risk to not performing it.") --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I legitimately was unaware that medical transition isn't done before somebody is 16, or in other words close enough to 18. While I am still uncomfortable with listing it as a bullet due to outsiders like me getting the association that it could mean 7 year olds are getting genital surgery, if it's actually common knowledge that genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers, it could be added back. Obviously with a less specific example than the litter box one. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion below which may help to address this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. I'd respond to the rest of your arguments, but frankly that one speaks for itself. But, I don't have the time to take you to AE today, so I'll assume good faith.

In any case, cry as much as you want about how regardless of your thoughts on whether queerphobia isn't queerphobia when kids are the target, the essay isn't going to change and remove all mention of trans youth for you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Updated my comment, my apologies for being too brusque in it originally. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. That was as blatant of a personal attack as one could be. By saying "I'd say you were a queerphobic troll", you did literally just that. You say you'll assume good faith, but every single reply you and Licks-Rocks have made to me in the past few day or two has implied the complete opposite, and both of you are raising very big WP:CIVIL concerns. Additionally, the sarcastic Non-Endorsement was extremely disruptive. Frankly, you could have avoided this whole mess without it. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You say this immediately after you speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not speculate on YNFS's competency based on her age at transition at all. You are still making stuff up about me to make me look worse. I said which is likely why you feel so strongly about that particular loose equivalence to "queerphobia", and I completely understand your feelings toward it. Keyword, I completely understand your feelings toward it". Not once did I question her competency as an editor; my statement of "loose equivalence" was referring to the content, not the user. After the blatant personal attack and thinly veiled name calling, her competency is in question now, and it's because of her user conduct, civility, and the disruptive sarcastic Non-Endorsement. Her gender identity or age at transition has nothing to do with these questions. Do not reply to this further, I'm taking both of you to ANI. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think loose equivalence referred to the user, I think the "which is likely why you feel so strongly" did. And further, I think the fact you brought it up at all is inappropriate. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up because I was unaware that YFNS transitioned as a minor until she brought it up on the Recent Deletions section (I did not read her userpage). That was me trying to be sympathetic to her, and both of you blew it. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So what about queermisia? It's an alternate term to queerphobia. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Hydrangeans

Moved from Hydrangeans 07:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You seriously want to revert to the version that lists That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women and That LGBT rights conflict with parental or religious rights as "queerphobia"? I don't think you realize that the removal of those false equivalences is what made several editors strike their !delete votes. Even though I did not strike my !delete despite me making those edits, the fact that others struck theirs shows that their removals were improvements to the essay. I only didn't strike mine because it was easy to see this essay getting abused to do exactly what the "Aspersion" section says not to do (and something that I feel you have repeatedly proven my worries on): Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. (Surprisingly, I had nothing to do with this section and didn't know it existed until I reread it near the end of the deletion discussion). Unnamed anon (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Replies to Billy7

Moved from Billy7 20:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I just want to say I am really, really saddened by this comment and the sentiment behind it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree with the OP's words to the effect that "activists" should be removed from Wikipedia editing for the same reason I am a non-endorser of this policy proposal. I don't agree with banning anyone for attitudes or ideologies outside of actual on-WP conduct. That said, I'm "greatly saddened" by the kind of blatant POV pushing that is being done in the name of activism, whether it's for reactionary or progressive causes. This is not RationalWiki. I think a return to actual policies of WP:NPOV are absolutely called for, and appropriate pushback against editors who will not comply with that core policy. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

the kind of blatant POV pushing If I may ask, where do you see this happening? This essay? NPOV applies to articles and article content, there is absolutely no requirement that essays written by individual editors or agreed upon by groups of editors must be neutral.

Also, NPOV is more about saying what sources say, and does not mean "neutral" in the American politics sense..

the view that biological sex is a 'spectrum' for Homo sapiens has no place in an article on biology - have some time to read this Nature article? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

And that shows some very poor article assessment. That is, in fact, a Nature *editorial*, not a research or review article. And precisely the kind of cherry-picking of sources that one might do if an editor ideologically-motivated. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

So you haven't read it or don't plan to. Got it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm familiar with it. I also know the context of that article, and I think it's hardly the last word on the topic. And I fault you for being unable to distinguish editorial and news content published in a scientific journal from actual research and review articles. I hope you're not editing scientific articles if you don't understand that difference.

In any event, it looks like your main purpose in this discussion is to merely shout down those who's views you don't agree with. I don't think it's a good use of my time to indulge in that kind of pissing contest. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it because you don't actually seem to want to talk about it..?

I don't want to get down the nitty-gritty of how you keep assuming other people as ideologically-motivated. Perhaps you didn't want to provide any counterarguments as to why the claims made in that article are incorrect, and that's fine, but there's really no need to be a jerk about it.

The two comments I made in reply to you has only asked you to read the article. And that has resulted in me being lectured on the difference between a Nature News Feature and a scientific journal article. If you keep wanting to assume that people who hold certain views are stupid and shouldn't be engaged with, then don't. Just please please don't let the views of yours out in front of other people because people overwhelmingly agree that being mean to other people for no particular reason is a shitty thing to do. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Your assumption is that I've never read the article. Again, I'm familiar with it, and while it rattles off a seemingly impressive-list of facts about individual traits that don't map neatly to biological sex, it engages in some logical fallacies of its own. Notably, what's been termed "naive falsification", in which rare exceptions (in this case, a very small number - less than one percent - of births that where biological sex is ambiguous) are used to dismiss a general rule.

However, since were not discussing edits to an actual article on human biological sex, I don't see why you wish to discuss the Nature editorial in depth.

And as for "being a jerk", from where I'm sitting, it's YOU who are behaving quite badly. I have no desire for conversation with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage in good faith. Mainly, I'm merely trying to weigh in on what's a very bad policy proposal. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Speaking of being a jerk: "Just please please don't let the views of yours out in front of other people" WOW! Could a demand for my silence be any more blatant than that? My disagreement with a questionable editorial in a scientific journal is a view that shouldn't be aired in front of other people apparently. FFS, look in the mirror before you accuse other people of jerkish behavior. Peter G Werner (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

No, that sentence was qualified in relation to the sentence before which said: If you keep wanting to assume that people who hold certain views are stupid and shouldn't be engaged with - people should generally avoid acting as if they are superior to other people, by "educating" them something the former assumes the latter do not understand even when the latter has never displayed qualities of not understanding. Like heck, I haven't even said a single thing about what I believed was true, or even whether I agreed with the article, and there comes replies with tons of assumptions made about me, my motives, and my attitude.

I would have enjoyed a discussion on how the essay is perceived as bad, or how it is wrong to call sex a continuum, or how NPOV ought to be applied throughout Wikipedia. But given that this apparently turned out to be quite emotional now there's a rant about the woke SJW caricature stereotype and how they keep being so uneducated about matters, just won't listen, keep being jerks while accusing others, keep demanding people to shut up, etc. etc, I'd rather stay off.

I have never, ever accused you of not reading the article. I brought that link up because it was what I had in mind. My second reply assumed so because you only talked about the surface level details (a metacommentary isn't hard if you read the gray line "News Article" before the title, so that appeared slightly cheap to me) and refused to engage in the article content. If my behavior to you is being a jerk, then I guess I can see how people who are more overtly queerphobic are fine with calling basic human empathy as far-left. In the end, it's all about reversal of common sense.

But we're just running in circles. People all got gripes about this world, I just happen to dislike people who project their gripes onto minorities who did nothing to deserve bad treatment. Anyways, have a nice day. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

And now you're projecting. I never used the term "SJW" anywhere in this conversation. I've never so much as implied that any minority, gender, or otherwise, should be "treated badly". I've never said a thing about "empathy". All of these are things that you've just PROJECTED.. And implied that I'm being "queerphobic" to boot. You assume a hell of a lot about my views, dude. It goes without saying that this not the way to engage in good faith. You accuse me of being emotionally triggered? Maybe take off the plank in front of your own eyes before pointing at the mote in mine. Peter G Werner (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I switch my claims from responding to the other person to making a commentary about people in general. Sorry if that is ambiguous. Have a nice day. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, c'mon man, we've got more important things to do :) How about editing some articles? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

used to dismiss a general rule - this is where we disagree on the intention of the article or its author. At some point, someone (presumably, a biologist) had to choose labeling someone with XY chromosomes as male, and someone with XX chromosomes as female. The article is asking people to rethink the way we think in relation to those labels.

What is very concerning to me is the denial of people who exist beyond those two simplistic labels, or the dehumanizing practice of forcing people to fit in to either category through surgeries without their consent or having children being raised with a gender that they do not identify with. And I have disdain for people who try to advocate for things like that on Wikipedia. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

And I have disdain for people who push WP:FRINGE theories as if they were mainstream science. Which is what "biological sex is a spectrum" in fact is.

And a few things - first, facts about biology (and facts about the natural world in general) are true or false based on supporting evidence, NOT on perceived political outcomes. Second, it's entirely possible to have social policies on what surgeries are appropriate or to allow people to freely express gender identity without attempting to rewrite biology. Thirdly, the sex–gender distinction is very much a thing many of us find useful, and simply trying to collapse biological sex into gender is not terribly helpful.

I'll just be blunt about it - you come across as *extremely* ideological. And that's fine, it takes all kinds to write an encyclopedia. But, for godsakes, hopefully you can put your own POV aside when you're editing articles. Second, maybe try and recognize that Wikipedia is a pluralistic space and not act so outraged when someone differes from your clearly ideologically-specific views about sex and gender. And this gets back to what I see as wrong with this entire proposal, which is that would instituionalize these these kind of ideolgically-specific policies. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree fully with DEADBEEF. I also support pushback against editors who don't comply with NPOV but in general think that editors who spend a lot of time accusing other editors of being activists are normally the big threats to NPOV: most editors are not activists and believing otherwise suggests your POV is so strong you think that neutral editing in concert with NPOV is biased against you. Loki (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Queer is a slur.

Trolling The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Queer is a homophobic slur for homosexual and bisexual males, so this essay is, by its own definition, "queerphobic". ~2026-31767-71 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Nah. Today, it has been given new meaning by the LGBTQIA+ movement. Although it is still considered offensive by some people. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)