Talk:Cross-sex relationships involving LGBTQ people

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 26 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people to Cross-sex relationships among LGBTQ people. The result of the discussion was moved.

Confused

So I stumbled upon this page and I have to say that I am quite confused by it. The page does not seem to explain how gay closeted people, bisexuals in straight-passing relationships, and straight transgender people are connected in terms of experience or oppression. None of the sources seem to talk about how these are connected and a lot of stuff in this article is not sourced at all (or is sourced with very old information - see the statistics on bisexuality from 2013, the study on men interested in trans women from 2010 which seems super outdated, etc.) Additionally, some of the sources seem to be cited in a way that obfuscates that they are actually citing another source - see source 1 which is just paraphrasing source 5.

Given that there are already articles on beards, transgender sexuality, attraction to transgender people, transmisogyny, and biphobia, it seems like there is little reason for this page to exist other than to conflate them, which seems to have little basis in academic conversation. More and better sources are needed for this page, as was stated back in October 2022. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No consensus on the alternative proposals, though there's no consensus against either so another RM can be started if desired. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people → Cross-sex relationships among LGBTQ people – The main article for the corresponding Heterosexual relationship/Cross-sex relationship we have is Same-sex relationship, as Homosexual relationship redirects there. There is Cross-sex friendship. I also would be in favour of Cross-gender relationships among LGBTQ people if possible. If duaric had an article and was popular enough, mayhaps it would be worthy to use Duaric relationships among LGBTQ people, as that would be the most politically correct. Web-julio (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, and WikiProject Psychology have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the key comparison article not mentioned is Heterosexuality. There's no reason to change the term here—we do for Same-sex relationship because that's much more widely used than Homosexual relationship. Remsense ‥ 论 06:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cross-sex relationships among LGBTQ people. While some hetero people are also LGBTQ (e.g., hetero trans people), most aren't (e.g., bi and pan people, and non-hetero trans people). This remains concise and precise without being inaccurate. It's a bit unnatural sounding at first, but I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase this. Lewisguile (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support: To me, referring to a relationship as heterosexual seems confusing in this context. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article could in general benefit from cleanup to remove confusion between the sex of the parties to a relationship and their sexual orientation.--Trystan (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that there needs a better name than the proposed one? I was thinking in "Mixed-sex relationships" which would be more inclusive. Web-julio (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a relationship may be cross-sex, but the people in the relationship themself might be bi,pan,.., which doesn't make themself heterosexual, so cross-sex is more accurate and also in line with Same-sex relationship. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly per precise—blindlynx 22:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Raladic. Queer people don't stop being queer just because the sex they are having any particular moment might appear to be cis-het. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Propose "different-sex relationships among LGBTQ people

According to Google ngrams, different-sex relationships is more commonly used. I also compared to heteronormative relationships, but I don't think that's the best option since, for example, a bi feminine man and a masculine bi woman could date and not conform to the expected roles of a man and woman in a heterosexual relationship. Urchincrawler (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually going one step further - the counter to same-sex is opposite-sex linguistically.

Which is more common according to ngram as well. Raladic (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an LGBTQ context, it seems like things don't necessarily split easily into simple "same" and "opposite" binary categorizations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I considered that as well, which is why I did not change my vote above, as I think cross-sex makes it clear that the usual binary of same and opposite in normal lingo may not quite always fit what we're conveying that. So I still think the proposed cross-sex is probably the best title for now. Raladic (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think different sex would be a better option both for the aforementioned more common use and for avoiding definitions that imply a binary. Cross sex comes off as more binary implying to me, like crossing from one sex to another. Different sex better encompasses a spectrum of human variation. Urchincrawler (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "other-sex relationships". Web-julio (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "among" should be "involving" here, as the partners of LGBTQ people are not always LGBTQ people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "involving" is better. Web-julio (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There's a bunch of proposals for more inclusive language that I don't think should be WP:BARTENDERed. Relisting to get more discussion on this. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up comment: Any objection to changing 'among' to 'involving', as discussed above? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it after seeing no objection. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]