Talk:Gay/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Same-sex encounters

I changed the following sentence

If a person has had same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as 'closeted', 'discreet', or 'bi-curious' may be applied.

To say "if a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters" as I feel it's more accurate. A person who has had same sex encounters at some stage but no longer engages in them would IMHO not usually be described as closeted, discreet or bi-curious. Especially if the same-sex encounters were largely because of access reasons (e.g. in an all male environment). Even if a person has a few same-sex encounters early in life as a form of experimentation or whatever, but no longer engages in them and does not feel sexually attracted to people of the same-sex, they would not be called closeted, discreet or bi-curious either IMHO. Of course, a reference would be good Nil Einne 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay in filtering/blacklisting software

It appears having the surname Gay can be a problem due to filtering software. I don't know if this should go here or in a Gay (surname) page. Perhaps here since the reason it's

Request for updating

Hi I want to make a wiki style website for homosexuals in my area. Am I allowed to use the name wiki in the domain I register and am I allowed to ad google adsense to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.222.112 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

bulgarian

Resolved

Hello :) I'd like to ask you if it's possible to update the part of the article "gay" where there is a list of the articles "gay" in other languages. Now there is an article in bulgarian language too, so I would like to ask you to add the bulgarian version to the list of languages. in bulgarian is: bg:Гей

Thank you in advance.

(Mahoujin 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Done. - Gilliam 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Enola gay

Resolved

To support what's said in the history of the word Gay about being also a name, it should also be said the Enola Gay was named with the pilot's mother name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.90.237.74 (talk) 00:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

reposted to that article's talk page. Benjiboi 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

gay straitjacket

I would like to add this heading to the gay page. The term gay straitjacket was coined by Donald Black (q.v.) in his book Escape the Gay Straitjacket to describe the helplessness that (he claims) 90% of gay men are subject to as they repress their anger. This anger repression, he says, is caused by a neurosis which they acquire very early in life. Symptoms of repressed anger include: the inability to stand up for themselves, allowing themselves to be bullied, allowing themselves to be manipulated, being afraid of (imagined) "violence", being unable to express anger, having difficulty in reaching a sexual orgasm and the need to use amyl nitrite ("poppers") to overcome this, feeling depressed, feeling oppressed by society, the inability to find "Mr Right", being late for appointments, forgetfulness, making silly mistakes, and the inability to participate in body-contact sports that require the use of aggression, such as soccer, rugby, boxing, judo, and wrestling.Andrenapier 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Andrenapier

Well that sounds like a load of ol' baloney to me. Being late for appointments is someohw connnected to being gay? Cripes. However, the question is, how notable is this theory? How much discussion of it is there? Paul B 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any reliable sources for this right now, (don't have the time), but there is the term "gay time" in the LBGT community, in which one meaning is being late to things, as in fashionably late. Not to say it's notable. — Becksguy (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing called drag time, diva time and tranny time. Benjiboi 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fudge packer

I don't mean to be offensive but, I wanted to know what the insult "fudge packer" meant and it redirected to here, what does the term actually mean? 156.34.212.243 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but sounds like a reference to anal sex - implying the compression of bowel contents. Are you saying there is a redirect to here? Paul B (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yup, there is a redirect to here, I wikified the title so you can see it. 156.34.220.245 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that fudge packer redirects here but fudgepacker redirects to anal sex. The latter was once an article in its own right, explaining the meaning see here. We also have an article on that famous movie Billy's Dad Is a Fudge-Packer‎. I think it would be sensible to point both redirects to the anal sex article, since it appears from my extensive research that that is the best place for it. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First Gay Baby (Embryo) is here

I suggest adding a topic on gay reproduction... as the really Gay baby is here! Two men's dna became a live embryo, which could be implanted in a woman and growup to a really gay child. 2 men (or 2 women) could have a genetic baby which is their own genetically, which was not possible until now. I guess this is a big step for "gayvolution" and raises interesting questions... Will evolution now leave regular folk behind? I really feel for the pope. He has to explain this life not born of a man and a woman all over again. And what will the prolifers do? Will they divide into 2 camps: pro-killing the gay embryo vs. keeping both types of life alive? Interesting questions ahead... Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/18embryos.html AnilN 66.191.69.114 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't really saying anything about a gay baby...or whether the two men are gay. But if they were, I wouldn't say that just because a baby has the DNA of two gay individuals...that that baby will necessarily be gay. But, anyway, I read an article in a newspaper some years ago where a few scientists stated to having created an offspring from the DNA of two female mice. So I knew that it would only be a matter of time before the combination of DNA from two women would be possible to create a child. I didn't think about the combination of DNA from two men, mainly because men cannot become pregnant (well, not naturally anyway). But if the the combination of DNA from two women can create a child, it certainly doesn't seem off that the combination of DNA from two men could as well. However, the above cited article also stated this: It is not clear whether the embryos would have been viable if implanted into a womb. Stemagen did not test whether the embryos had the correct number of chromosomes. But Dr. Wood, who also is a fertility doctor, said, “We’ve seen reproductive blastocysts that look like this or worse and they implant.”

I'm not really for scientists tampering with nature like this, if it's just to create children. Or specific type of children. But I have written about something that touches on this, and it reminds me of the film Gattaca. But, yeah, we'll see how to add this new information to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing whatever to do with the article, which is about the word "gay". Paul B (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's settled. Hey, I was very sleepy that early in the morning...and had an "off-moment" in suggesting that we'd find some way to add that information to this article. I'm clear-headed now, and agree, of course, that it really has no place in this article. As I mentioned above, it doesn't mention a thing about being gay (or the word "Gay", for that matter). Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

homosexuals have imbalanced amount of hormons estrogen and androgen,so it is then a illnes.It has nothing to do with gens.--Vule91 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Babylon

Sorry this is probably not directly related to this article.

but out of curiosity...does anyone know how did the name 'Babylon' (which is supposed to be a town/village in the US) become assosiated with gay ?

thpsycho feb 13 2008 (Thpsycho (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

UNESCO document on masculinity

User:Masculinity has inserted[1] a link to a UNESCO document on masculinity in boys. This contains good information and is a reliable source, but I am going to remove the link for a couple of reasons:

• That document as a whole does not primarily relate to the term or the concept of Gay. That's simply not the document is about. If there are one or more specific passages in the UNESCO document that are relevant to a specific idea expressed in our Gay article, we should cite specific pages of the UNESCO document using footnotes.
• The "See also" section generally shouldn't contain external links. "See also" should contain links to other Wikipedia articles. Links to other websites can go in an "External links" section

On the other hand, that document is highly relevant to the masculinity article, but you will see that that article already contains the link (aee Masculinity#Further_reading).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing it for the first bulleted reason above is fine with me. I restored and fixed the problems with it because it looked like it had been removed simply for being a "bad link". Mike R (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree, the entire unesco site does not talk about the 'gay' issue, but there are specific chapters in it that talk about the problems and frustrations that develop in Indian young men, because of the western concepts of 'sexual orienation', 'homosexuality' and 'gay', which are imposed upon them by a westernised media as 'universal truths'.

The Wikipedia article on 'gay' is silent about this violation of rights and attack on the identity of Indian and other non-western men when such concepts are imposed upon them by a westernised media as universal truths. This issue has been raised several times by people working with men on sexual health, especially HIV/AIDS and STDs. (Masculinity (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Sexual Orienation is a western concept and should not be seen as universal

The entire idea that people, especially men, can be divided on the basis of their 'proclaimed' sexuality is a concept peculiar to the modern west, and to discuss the concept as a universal phenomena, and to judge or study other sexuality, men and masculinities in other cultures and in other times on the basis of these concepts not only distorts and misrepresents their reality, but also is seen by oppressive by people on whom the west enforces these identities, often through the one-sided process of globalisation.

Wikipedia, should take into account this fact when discussing modern western concepts such as 'sexual orienatation', 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'gay' and 'straight', etc., and it should clearly mention this fact, because, although it is an English site, it is meant for the entire world, and not only for the western world. Only that will make it a truly relevant and global site. (Masculinity (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I have copied these comments to WT:LGBT for wider view of WP:LGBT participants. Aleta (Sing) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is sabotaging the discussed changes to the 'gay' article

As per the discussions on the LGBT project talk page, I had twice or thrice added a small abstract linking to a new article "Non-western concepts of male sexuality". Someone has deleted the addition everytime, without assigning a reason. Can this page be semi protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, they are not "discussed changes". You have simply added acres of text on the homosexuality article talk page justifying your assertions, and somehow think that gives you the right to add the statements which you claim is "agreed" there to this article. But this article is not about the definition and practice of homosexual acts around the world. It is about the changing usage of the word "gay". Your additions said nothing about that whatsoever, and yet were added upfront in the lede, which is the place to summarise the content, not to add new content that is then never discussed in the article proper. See WP:MoS. As it happens your text was also unreferenced, and made sweeping assertions about "Western" and "non-Western" cultures, as if both thse large-scale categories were unprblematic and internally identical, which is highly dubious. There are many variations within "Western" cultures and even more in "non-Western" ones, which make such generalisations problematic at best. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Paul Barlow... first of all, if you are really serious about an issue, like you are on this one, you should not shy away from discussing loads of texts, and if you don't want to waste your time, well, don't mess by deleting materials. Otherwise, it seems to me to be nothing but cultural chauvinism.

Second, it does seem you're quite out of touch with what is happening. Not only has there been a whole lot of discussion on this, I have also submitted 21 references from published materials all around the world. the discussion is on this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Same-sex_relations_in_non-western_cultures

Now, for god's sake, if you have to say anything, say it there, discuss the various references that have been provided, but don't just go about deleting stuff.

Did you even care to go to the link that I've provided? Please keep your personal feelings about the gay identity to yourself, and try to be more broad based here. (Masculinity (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Agree with Paul B. This article is about the word "gay", not about relationships. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have every right to delete offtopic, unreferenced text. How can I be "out of touch" with what is happening when I actually referred to your text on homosexuality talk page, a fact which makes your suggestion that I did not go to "the link that I've provided" nonsensical. Did you understand what I said? I shall repeat it. What you say on that page relates to that article, not to this one. Discussions on that page - which by the way show no sign of any clear consensus or agreement - do not imply any consensus with regard to this one. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Masculinity, you are arguing about the inclusion of your text in this article. While the text may be appropriate for other articles, discussion about the appropriateness for this article should appear *here*. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil and Paul, I am sorry to say, that as editors you are supposed to be more professional than this. You should have told me upfront that I am supposed to redo the entire discussion on this page. I was under the impression that the entire LGBT project is one. I have been shunted around from the main discussion page to another back to the homosexuality page. And now, you want me to do the same discussion here.

That is fine. But you should be more responsible about this. Your task is not just to remove something you don't like. You must also inform the person whose content you have deleted and give proper guidance. I expect that much courtsey from your side, in order that people are saved unnecessary harrassment. (Masculinity (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

No, ample reasons were given in the edit summaries and on this talk page. It is up to you to read them and respond if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plese do not tell us we should be more "professional". No-one here is a professional. However, there is no requirement to personally inform an editor that text has been removed. Also please do not cut and paste your epic text from homosexuality to here. Instead, make a case for the relevance of what you are saying. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I would appreciate if any of you could help us improve Masculinity's contribution by participating in the discussion at the new page he's created, Non-western concepts of male sexuality. There are some obvious problems with the page that need to be addressed with the input of the broader community.--Agnaramasi (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact Masculinity seems to have created two near-identical pages, one of which should be redirected (Non-western concepts of male sexuality and Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I swear I did not create the page Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures. I don't agree that the concepts that we are talking about are modern, in the sense that although they are present today, but they have been there since at least the medieval times. Although, I am open to any discussion about anything. This sure would lead to confusion. Why not just work at one page?

This [2] says otherwise. But it's fairly easy to create articles so it was probably done by mistake. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what happened. You created an article actually called "Start new article" and someone else renamed it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Paul B. People come here and spend a lot of their valuable time because they want Wikipedia to be as accurate in documenting facts as possible. You are supposed to be professional in your approach so that people are not hassled, as you go deleting their stuff with a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude. I never even recieved a notice saying my stuff is being deleted, and I swear I thought you're just a saboteur, chauvinist, who doesn't want any information that goes against the western gay identity. (Masculinity (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

"I swear I did not create the page Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures." Yes you did. Here's the edit history [3]. However, Gwernol gave it its name [4], since you had not done so. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. has never conveyed a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude. He has given you valid reasons why he thinks your text does not belong in *this* article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<Yes you did>>> Well, in that case, that must have been when I was trying to learn how to create a new page. Sorry about that. (Masculinity (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<:Paul B. has never conveyed a "I don't care, I don't like it" attitude.>>> Well in that case ... I'd like to rest the matter here ... as a big misunderstanding, and hope that we can all work in tandem from now on. regards. (Masculinity (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm proposing the following additions and internal link to the article on Gay

As per the discussion on the homosexuality page, I have created a new Wikipedia page titled "Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality", and I wish to provide a short abstract on the 'gay' page, providing an internal link to this page.

Kindly, review this text, and if you wish to make changes to it, please discuss it with me here, before it is posted on the main page. But, please don't take forever. Say what you want to say in a reasonable period of time.

Proposed Addition

Non-Western concepts of male sexuality: There is a growing voice -- both from western and non-western world -- that claims that the notions of 'sexual orientation', 'homosexuality', heterosexuality, bisexuality and the sexual identities of 'gay', 'straight' etc. are peculiarly modern Western concepts, that have no relevance, and are in fact harmful to men, in the Traditional, non-Westernised, non-heterosexualised social spaces. Please refer to Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality)

References: (1) GAY AMERICAN “DEVIANCE”: Using International Comparative Analysis to Argue for a Free Speech and Establishment Clause Approach to Furthering Gay Marriage in the United States. Bijal Shah, Yale Law School; http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/52/

Quote from the research paper:

“Sexual identity is not universally understood as solely located in the individual in the same fashion as lesbian and gay identity in middle-class Western societies.”

(2) The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

(3) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs, University of Chicago Press, 2007; from the site: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679743

Quote:

“Massad's point, though, is this: In the Arab world, men who have sex with men are, for the most part, not "gay", and need no liberation from prosecution. They are not "gay" because "gay" is a Western identity that The Gay International has attempted to thrust upon them.”

“Western gay-rights groups are causing great harm to those they purport to assist by forcing them to either choose the Western "gay" label, or choose not to realize their true sexuality.”

“Like the Byzantines who viewed unveiled women as prostitues or lower class women and thus succeeded in creating the veiled Arab woman simply by implying they are a lower class if unveiled, Western literature of the last 1000 years referring to the Arabs as sodomites and pederasts and now, incredibly as homophobes, has imposed its mores and culture on their fluid concepts of Arab sexuality.”

(4) Distorting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book Desiring Arabs University of Chicago Press, 2007; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

Quote:

“The central thesis of his 25-page polemic was that promotion of gay rights in the Middle East is a conspiracy led by western orientalists and colonialists which “produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist”.

(5) Homosexual behaviour without homosexual identity: The case of Chinese men having sex with men (MSM); Winkelmann C.; Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. WePeD6407; http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102284322.html

Quote:

"Historically homosexual behaviour was wide-spread in China and tolerated by society as long as the men were married and had children. "Homosexual behaviour - as distinct from a gay" identity, which is a Western import that didn't hit China until the late 20th century - was an ordinary part of Chinese life." Lessons: As a result the majority of MSM do not consider themselves as either homo- or bisexual."

(6) GAY CULTURES IN MANAGUA, NICARAGUA; http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/mana.html

Quote:

"There is no strong feeling of identity or community for men involved in homo-sexual behavior, except for the maricones who have a strong sense of identity and for the western style gays who have a sense both of identity and community."

(7 ) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 102 "Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

“But the basic drawback (of the scientific discourse on male-male sexuality) is that they conveniently assume that the modern socio-political ‘gay’ identity constitutes a distinct biological group, which is an absurd and unscientific assumption.Men of different genders came together on a common platform ‘homosexual’ in the west only because of their oppression under heterosexualisation and not because of any biological affinity.”

Page: 102 "When these heterosexual terms (gay, homosexual) are forced upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., the sexual identity ‘homosexual’ becomes a gender identity (transgender)."

Page 63 "Case Study: In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of North India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’."

Page 100 “Case Study: The HIV/ AIDS intervention programme being implemented in India, which is heavily funded by foreign donors, is being used by certain vested interest groups to divide the Indian male society along the lines of sexual orientation, and create a homosexual identity. Although, it has not worked and the only takers for the homosexual identity have ben the English speaking feminine gendered males, the entire social machinery — including the media and the government — has put its weight behind this endeavour.

After the failure of the homosexual identity amongst Indian men, some 'gay' activists introduced a clever term ‘MSM’, i.e., ‘men who have sex with men’ which, being a technical term, was difficult to avoid. However, this has become another third sex identity, and is used only by / for feminine males. Ironically, the indigenous feminine gendered males (e.g. the Hijras) too reject this identity, since they do not consider themselves ‘men’.”

(Masculinity (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Can you please explain how your proposed addition would help a reader understand the history and usage of the term "gay"? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What this addition will do is basically link to a page that will help the reader understand that the concept of 'gay', which seeks to divide men without reference to their gender (masculinity/ femininity) is not universal, and that half of the world sees things in a different way -- it classifies people according to sex and gender first, any other division can only come after that. The concept of Gay stands diagonally opposite to that.

This artilce does not give space to how the concept of love/ sex between men/ males are seen in the non-western world, and this is misleading as well as wrong.

I could add a lot of stuff here, with mainstream references to explain my point, but I'm adding just a small abstract primarily because I understand that this is prmarily a western space, and particularly this page belongs to the strong gay lobby which does not want to accomodate any point of view, however prevalent in the world, that doesn't agree with its own. I know, that even to add this much, with all the references in the world, would be a grand achievement, and I'm saying this out of experience.(Masculinity (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

You propose the add the text in the Sexual Orientation section? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest putting it under a different section under point 3, in place of " Pejorative non-sexualized usage". Also, a small note can be added in the introduction saying something like "the validity of the concept of 'gay' identity is disputed in non-western societies". (Masculinity (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

I can't support these suggestions as your edit is not about pejorative non-sexualized usage and this article is not about the gay identity so a note in the lede would be inappropriate. The best place (I think) is in the Sexual Orientation section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The "strong gay lobby" agrees. (see this for proof of its existence) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Are you trying to make a useful contribution or just joking around? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Both, I didn't know joking around while agreeing with someone's suggestion was discouraged in WP. The words "strong gay lobby" is what Masculinity said, so if he thinks there is such a thing, then I'll play along. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed content would be an important addition. I think it should be its own section following the History section which serves to detail the evolution of the word and concept in Western culture. A valuable follow-up to that would show that the concept of GAY did not evolve the same way all over the world. With increased globalization in business, entertainment and aid work, the West needs an important reminder that our concepts aren't always universal. And with Wikipedia being encouraged in third world countries as a tool for learning it is important that these articles remain relavant. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much DEZnCHRIS. Wikipedia is getting increasingly popular in third world countries like India and China, and it would be greatly relevant not only for us, but for westerners as well, if the facts involving our cultures are (1) given proper space in any discourse that seeks to cover the entire humanity, (2) are correctly documented, without bias.

Globalisation of cultures can be a wonderful thing if its a two way process -- we learn from you, you learn from us. It can be devastating if it is a one way process, where one side enforces its values and concepts on the other with the power of economy and technology.

It really brings hope to see such balanced voices asserting themselves in this space here.

(Masculinity (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Neil, it would be unjust not to say something in the introduction section about this, since the introduction section does refer about 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals', as if they are universal truths. Also, there is generally an immense individual as well as culural misconception in western(ised) people that the concept of Gay is universal, and anyone who accepts his sexual need for men has to be gay (if he rejects it, he is just not comfortable with his sexuality!). This strong cultural bias need to be mentioned right in the beginning, because people who actually can make use of this information (and they'd often not be gay people), may not read beyond the introduction part ... as the information is totally about LGBT issues. A small line here will encourage him to read on.

Also, the introduction section already talks in detail about one dispute -- i.e. lesbian vs gay ... so adding something about non-western cultures may not be too out of the way, except that it may hurt the ego of chauvinists

(Masculinity (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)).

Neil, please respond.

(Masculinity (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Be patient. He might be doing something in real life and has not seen your last comment yet. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think is belongs in the lede as the entire paragraph is about gay as a term. Are you saying that "gay" can mean something else in non-western cultures? AgnosticPreachersKid, feel free to chime in with your opinion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead either. To be honest, I'm not sure what the message is Masculinity is trying to convey with this whole talk page discussion. It just seems like alot of OR...and that might be the reason the article he created about this topic was deleted. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see how it makes sense to suggest that sexual orientation is just a concept. I mean, men who identify as gay have been brainwashed into thinking that they are gay or that they should identify as gay just because they live in Western society? Nah. Gay, as in sexual orientation, has always existed. Society only gave it a name. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The concept of gay as it has evolved in our culture comes from our need in modern times to label everything, even people. In other cultures, they divide their population by ethnicity and by economic caste systems... but for many, sexuality has been a more fluid thing. Meaning that just because you are a man sleeping with men it doesn't separate you from others in your community. Personally, it's not a bad idea. And it's worth mentioning that there can be other ways to view it around the world that are actually okay. They aren't necessarily coming from a bad place. And if westerns are storming over there to break down walls that aren't really there than that can be harmful. Just because a culture never sought to separate people according to whom they love doesn't mean that there is a lack of acceptance. No doubt the West has something to teach them, but we need to be respectful in our approach honoring that they've had a different journey than ours. That's why I think it would be worth a small section that refers to a larger text for anyone wanting to know more. The article is very western-centric. Wouldn't you agree? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or do I sense a possible sock? It's not the fact that this user is agreeing with Masculinity, but the fact that his only two edits have been to agree with Masculinity and the wording sounds similar. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the phrasing is very similar. — Becksguy (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's of course possible, but let's try to assume good faith, and frankly, they don't write that similarly in my opinion. Aleta ^Sing 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hha! I don't know any one here. I don't mind being disagreed with. But I'd prefer being disagreed with for what I've said- not for some presumed alliance. I only agree with masculine out of an interest in cultural anthropology and I assist in aid work in Africa (with Hands @ Work) and have seen how harmful us westerners can unintentionally be when we forget that others have their own paths. It's not wrong for us to influence them, but it needs to be done in a way that honors that they have come from a culture that has followed a different path and changes need to be done more slowly, in relationship- not using bully tactics. I don't think that a great fuss needs to be made over this. But a mention that there are greater world-views than what is presented would be a graceful addition. One has to admit that the article is Western-centric. Which presumes that other cultures are just savages who have nothing of value to add to the topic. You'll never make friends by excluding them. And if changes are to be made abroad they have to see that they are invited to be a part of the discussion. This opens the relationship and invites them to join in with our ongoing story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.130.186 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot my tildes DEZnCHRIS (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DEZnCHRIS, there's nothing wrong with labels. They are not meant to separate people. They are meant to identify things, give things or people names so that we can use that while communicating. It's not just sexuality we name, of course. We name everything. It's the very reason I've never had any problem with sexuality being labeled as fictional character Ashley Davies has a problem with it. Can a man or a woman who has had sex with the same sex be wrongly labeled as gay or bisexual? Yes. I mean, that happens sometimes with people in prison when they are simply taking part in situational sexual behavior. Sometimes, a heterosexual man in prison may enter into a sexual relationship with a man due to lonliness, physical need, etc. It does not mean that that man is gay or should be labeled bisexual. But I still don't see sexual orientation as simply a concept or labeling sexual orientation to be this awful act against humanity. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable, too. You may be right. I still agree with adding a mention to another larger topic in the interest of incorporating a larger world view, but this is by no means a hill to die on. This is a fine article without it. Cheers! DEZnCHRIS (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Deznchris, you're quite patient and balanced, unlike me ... I tend to get quite unnerved with all that resistance, and there is some concerted, aggressive denial of space to non-western POV, hiding behind Wikipedia rules that have never been violated in the first place. (Masculinity (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

ONe thing about the process of globalisation -- if it is only the west thrusting its ideas and notions on others, especially the US, it will never be useful to anyone. A cultural exchange has to be two-ways for it to be useful. (Masculinity (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

As far as the thing about labels go ..., there are two things:

Sometimes, when there are hidden agendas, and not everyone has been consulted, or when the making of labels and concepts have not been that honest or transparent, then the labels may be unsuitable for some people (while others may fit in quite well) -- as is the case with gay.

2. If you think there is nothing wrong with labelling, WOULD YOU CONSIDER LABELLING SEXUALLY AGGRESSIVE WOMEN AS 'WHORES' or maybe "women who have multiple male sexual partners". Would you brush aside the objection of women as just unscientific nuisance.

Or how would you like to label 'homosexuals' into masculine homosexuals and feminine homosexuals.

Or Homosexuals into promiscous homosexuals and relationship oriented homosexuals.

The thing is, it is not really about labels. It is about Why are those labels being created? For whose benefits do these labels work? For the benefits of people upon whom they are enforced or for someone else?

Then again, if the labels are meant to isolate and harm, then its better to be without labels. E.g. if the HIV+ people are being harrassed in a society, would you force them to be labelled in any case as HIV positve.

Or would you say that labelling the Jews with ((was it) yellow star a good idea, even if it was meant to harm them?

Also, one society may label something which is very important for it. But it the same thing is not important for another society, it may not relate with that label. Just like the skin of your arm below the wrist is of no importance to you, so you don't name it. But a group of persons who have had that part of their skin pinched for generations will develop a lable for that part of the skin, and it will mean a lot to them. But you will be quite unimpressed with that label.

You see, the issue of labels is not so simple as just giving things a name. And this is assuming that they are honest and above board, which several people within and wtihout the western society feel is not the case with 'gay'.

(Masculinity (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

I still don't know what this has to with *this* article. In the English language, gay has now become synonymous with male homosexual. The article is talking about the English word - not the concept of homosexuality or if certain people should be called homosexual (or gay). The sexual orientation section does consider the potential difference between gay and homosexual but illustrates it in how the terms can be used. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I hate to be argumentative and almost wish I would stop checking here... but it is a problem if the assumption is that only the West would use the English language Wikipedia. I've spent the last 3 sleepless nights (due to time differences) on the phone coordinating upcoming projects in the middle of nowhere Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo... and all of my interactions are done in English (even though I'm fluent in French, in the case of the DRC, former Belgian Colony). And it seems the argument for the English word, gay, being a label, a way of identifying yourself/others/each other, has been made. Only, the bias is that it's not a label that is used everywhere where the English language is spoken (which, come-on, is EVERYWHERE). DEZnCHRIS (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I will add that I don't see it fitting into the Sexual Orientation Section, which would imply that it doesn't exist as an orientation in other cultures. I would incorporate it as tastefully and as seamlessly as possible into the Development of Modern Usage section. Then it would be understood in the context of how the word (or the label) has DEVELOPED in its common USAGE in other cultures in the MODERN age. It seems to me this would certainly be the more proper context for it. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This all rather making a meal of something that shouldn't be too much of a problem. A comment on the relationship between the use of the term of 'gay' as a badge of identity in the 'non-West' can be added at an appropriate place as long as it is NPOV and is appropriately cited, but it should be brief, since this article is about a word not about homosexuality as such. Actually it is interestimg that the English word has entered other languages, such as French. I don't know to what extent the English term has become international. That's why we need real evidence about its use. Paul B (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See here for evidence of how "gay" is increasingly used in French language. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=659035 DEZnCHRIS (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you two but we need good references - unfortunately a post in a forum doesn't cut it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no. I just enjoy the forums. . . The actual translation on Word Reference states it definitively. But I just included that in agreement with what Paul B wrote. It's all a bit of a side-note anyway. I also agree with what Paul B wrote in regards to the topic at hand. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity, using words like "straight" or "gay" to identify sexual orientation is quite different than labeling a sexually aggressive woman a whore, as I'm sure that you know. Of course I'd have a problem with someone calling a woman a whore just because she's quite fond of sex or has had multiple male (or female) sexual partners. That's more like name-calling rather using labels for the simple means of identification. Sure, it can be name-calling when a person is calling a man gay who is not gay, but using words such as "straight" or "gay" are more so understood as necessities. I don't see what is all that necessary about using the word "whore". Not to mention that sexually aggressive does not automatically translate to whore. And, sure, two men engaging in sex with each other does not always automatically translate to both being gay, but the act would be considered a "gay act", and it's more understandable how one could come to the conclusion that both men are gay. But I don't see how it's understandable to assume that or rather refer to a woman as a whore just because she's sexually aggressive. Either way, I do get what you're saying about wrongly labeling a person's sexual identity, and I do get that some people are not all that into labels when it comes to sexual identity. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer for your honest remarks. I would try to answer some of the points raised to the best of my ability.

In a male-dominated society, sex between men is often celebrated, but women who show interest in men is isolated as "Whore".

A heterosexual society, brings the "whore" back from isolation and makes her out to be the "normal" majority, and stops dividing women on the basis of how many sexual partners she has or whether or not she has sexual interest in men. In fact, in a male dominated society, often a woman who shows sexual interest in men is considered a "Whore".

But the same heterosexual society, isolates male-male sexual behaviour as "homo" or "gay" which isolation, in a male-dominated society is only used for gender non-conforming males. So, the moment you show sexual interest in another guy, someone will call you 'gay' and it would be disastrous for your position in the men's group, since you'll now be isolated from there and be considered a part of the non-gender conforming males.

Can you see the similarity between the two?

Now, I don't agree with your contention that "gay" is a matter-of-fact label denoting 'sexuality'. Outwardly it denotes only sexuality, but common, the 'gender' baggage (rather gender-nonconfromant baggage) is a part and parcel of it. Indeed, the gay or homosexual identity is built on this third-sex space. And, that is where the problem is with this label.

Also, "Gay" also is just as 'bad' a word for men -- whether in the East or the West -- as "Whore" is for women. Don't forget that the word Gay, originally meant a sexually loose feminine gendered male who seeks to be anally penetrated. It's only that some people (we still need to know how these people are different from those who reject the 'gay' identity) have reclaimed the abusive term.

So, why can't we do the same with women who are sexually open or dominant or have multiple partners. Afterall, the sexuality of a person cannot only be gauged by who he or she is attracted to. There are other facets to a person's personality. And, don't forget that there has been a study which found a gene that makes some women (about 20%) interested in multiple partners: so 'whore' is also a valid biological identity.

But, eventhough you can see the unjustice to women when they are labelled as "whore" or a more politically correct term (like women interested in multiple partners) to describe them, you can not understand the pain of men who are labelled 'homo' or 'gay' just because they happen to like men, let's say, exclusively.

Actually, these labels are devised by the forces in power to suit their end, often to isolate what they do not like. Since, the heterosexual society wants to celebrate the 'women's' sexual aura, the society abhors the word 'whore', but since it is interested in isolating male-male sexual behaviour it not only encourages the 'gay' label, but also gives a strong social space to males who identify with the term 'gay'.

But it doesn't mean that these are the only males who are interested in men. Lots of men are exclusively into men, but they don't acknowedge their sexual feelings because the western society doesn't give them space, except the gay space to do so. A label which is worse than death to them.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

These men can't even place their discomfort properly, since they have no concept of 'gender' or 'third gender', and so many look for other explanations, including 'social constructionism' and stuff like "g0y" and "heroic homosexuality".

(Masculinity (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Guys, I think the best place to put a small link to the "non-western concepts of male sexuality" is in the introduction section itself, for the simple reason that people who really need that information, i.e., men who desire men, but are averse to the 'gay' identity, are not likely to read beyond the introduction section, which claims to include all men who like men. A link here would be extremely helpful to such men, so that they can know the information that can really help them find themselves.

On the other hand, if it is included somewhere way down, as part of some other section, almost all people who could do with this information will miss it.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Also Freddie, the difference whom does the 'gay' identity fits is not about the exclusivity or otherwise of sexual desire of a man for another. As has been shown in the other discussion -- wtih published refernces -- and as borne out by my intense research on the topic -- the real difference is of GENDER, a concept which is not even acknowledged by Western science and culture, and not included in the formal definition of 'gay', but forms its base.

So, fitting smugly into the gay label does not have to do with whether you are exclusively into men or just as a side kick. It has everything to do with how comfortable are you with the third sex, queer, feminine male space -- and I am not using this in the negative sense at all. For, femininity in males is just as valid and biologically as well as socially important human trait.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<Agree with you two but we need good references >>>

Neil, the problem here is who decides what is a good reference? I may find something extremely relevant, but you may reject it outright. How do we ensure that there is no bias in judging the references. Also, as far as I know, what is needed as far as Wikipedia policy goes, a reference from a valid source, like a paper published by a University.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, Masculinity. Thank you for taking the time to explain your feelings so well. I would debate with you some more, but Wikipedia talk pages aren't really for debating our own personal beliefs...unless it's to help improve the articles we're working on. And I don't feel that this debate is that relevant to us including your proposed addition. Some of it was relevant, of course, to see where you're coming from on this matter, but not an ongoing debate. I still don't see labels such as "straight" or "gay" as this bad thing. Again, we're human beings and human beings label/name everything. If we didn't use words such as "straight" or "gay" to identify sexual orientation, then we would use other words to do so. I mean, we do also have words such as "heterosexual" and "homosexual". I'm sure that this would happen, no matter Western society, and would happen all over again if we could somehow erase all sexual indentity lables and knowledge of such labels having existed. I also don't feel that most of the world today sees a woman who is interested in men as a whore. I know that women don't have all that much freedom in some parts of the world, and the "interest in men" equates to "whore" in those places, but anyway.

You are quite an intriguing person to talk to. It seems that your proposed addition is being taken into consideration. I hope that we can help you contribute to this article as best we can. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Masculinity, see WP:RS for what is considered a good source. If you can find sources that say the word gay means something else in non-western cultures (not the idea of being/identifying as gay mind you) the we can see about incorporating the info in the lead paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I don't understand what you mean by "not identifying with gay". I strongly feel that if there is any discrepancy, confusion, dispute at all with the meaning, usage or applicability of the word 'gay' or the 'gay' identity, it definitely needs to be incorporated prominently in this article. Ideally, there should be detailed discussion of it, but that should be circumvented only if a reference is given, right in the introduction that links to another page that talks about this discrepancy.

And, here I have just the references for you about the word 'gay' meaning something else in non-western societies:

Reference no. 1

Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote:

Page: 62

The Indian usage of the word "Homo" is quite different from its usage in the west. In India it refers to transgendered males who have sex with men.

The term 'homosexual' is used for a feminine male who is stereotyped as being desirous of having receptive anal sex with men as an assertion of his feminine gender.

... It is interesting that although in the West 'homo' refers to sex between any two males, in our traditional society, masculine or so-called 'normal' men who have sex with other men are not considered homosexuals. On the other hand, a feminine male who may have sex only with women would be described as a 'homo'. So 'homo' in India is basically a feminine/ third sex identity rather than referring to a sexual preference.

Case Study

In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of north India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a 'homo'. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women.

On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as 'homo'.

Reference no. 2

The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; By Pierre J. Tremblay & Richard Ramsay Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.

http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

""Who is gay in an Indian context? What is gay? Who is homosexual? About three-quarters (72%) of truck drivers in North Pakistan who participated in a recent survey published in AIDS Analysis Asia admitted that they had sex with other males, while 76% stated that they had sex with female sex workers. Are these 72% gay? Homosexual?"

(Masculinity (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Nope, the quotes you provided are talking about the word "homo", not "gay". --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally and strongly disagree Neil. This is clearly unnecessary hair splitting. You don't need a published reference to agree that 'gay', 'homosexual' and 'homo' are all synonyms. Elsewhere in the book, the word 'gay' has been used to explain how the word is not treated in the same way as in the west. And this article on 'gay' is not just a dictionary meaning of the term gay. It talks about the issue of sexual orientation and male to male sexuality in some detail. (Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

... and, the second reference specifically talks about 'gay' and that the western definition of gay is invalid in India ("Who is gay in an Indian context? What is gay?") (Masculinity (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

You still don't seem to get that this article is about the etymology of the word gay. Not "homo", not "homosexual", but the English term gay: This article is about the word "gay" as a term. For broader information see homosexuality. Why aren't you suggesting changes to the Homosexuality article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, Neil. It seems that you are creating a higher bar to jump than what is necessary or asked of for everything else in the article. Clearly, the source document does exactly what you are asking and does speak specifically to the word "gay".

If the word boot is used to mean one thing in N. America but can also be used to mean another thing in the UK, then it should be laid out as such in an article on the word boot. In that case, the UK/Australian alternate understanding of the word is both mentioned under a section titled "Boots in Idiom" in the main "boot" article and has it's own page under "car boot" in the "boot (disambiguation)".

So, depending on how this proposed addition is framed it could fit under either the "Etymology" section or the "Common Usage" section under a heading for Non-Western Development of the word or Non-Western Common Usages, respectively. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which source are you referring to? Also, I'm making a distinction between the word gay and if the concept of gay is valid. Put it this way - in what way does the phrase "He's gay" differ in meaning in different countries/cultures? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your second question first:

"He's gay" means "he is a person of the third sex" in traditional, non-westernised India. See the reference (no.1) of the usage of the term 'homo' in India, including the 'case study'. Remember that homosexual and 'gay' are synonyms. You can't expect the author to mention all the synonyms used for 'gay'.

The second reference clearly asserts that the usage of the word 'gay' is disputed in India. Now, if a word's usage is disputed, you must mention it when defining that word on a global forum like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no more only for Americans. And that dispute cannot be relegated to a place somewhere in the back. It has to be prominently stated. Like you talk about differences in the usage of 'gay' for women.

Here are a few more quotes from the first source, that clearly shows that the word 'gay' is viewed differently:

Quotes:

Page 100

As part of the homosexualisation process, sexual desire for men is increasingly being propagated in India as a feminine, 'gay' thing, represented by feminine hairdressers and fashion designers. The only depiction of male-male love is through negative symbols, including ugly, funny, weird, and queer (feminine) characters."

Case Study:

A programme on a foreign owned Indian channel interviewed a third sex person to show what the inside life of a 'gay' is like. The 'gay' man comes on stage wearing a ladies suit and refers to himself as 'she'. 'She' explains how she always felt that she was a woman from inside."

Note that all the synonyms of 'homosexual', viz. 'homo', 'gay' and 'queer' have been used to denote 'femininity'.

Also, note that there is also a quote in the book that clearly shows that even in the west, the word 'gay' is equated with male femininity:

Quote

Page 101

In the movie 'What Women Want' shown on Star Movies, the heroine tells the hero in a scene: "You think like a woman, you know instantly what a woman wants. You must be gay!"

So, clearly, we must mention this when discussin the usage of the word 'gay'.

(Masculinity (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

J. Michael Bailey on Gay Femininity, a Review of J. Michael's book "“The Man Who Would Be Queen”, by Paul Varnell

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27008.html

Some more references from published sources about the word 'Gay' being used for feminine males:

"Bailey primary claim is that the link between femininity and homosexuality is well-established: “My research demonstrates a large degree of femininity in gay men.” And Bailey thinks this gay femininity is rooted in the brain. Gay men's brains are a mosaic of male and female parts, he says.

For example, Bailey says, gay men were feminine in childhood. They move in feminine ways, have feminine voices (a “gay accent") and tend to be feminine in their sex roles. They have feminine interests—show tunes, decorating, fashion, dancing. They have more psychological problems than heterosexual men such as depression and anxiety, just as women do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, this is getting silly. The Man Who Would Be Queen, which has its own Wikipedia page, is not about "non western" attitudes and is wholly tangental. The other references simply use "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual". If we wanted this page to be about that, ity would just be a redirect to 'homosexual'. Instead of paragraph upon paragraph of quotations, which have now probably created more "talk" than all the other topics ever discussed on this page put together, can we agree to have a brief comment about the adoption of the term in other countries and a note about how gay identity can clash with local models of gender and sexual behaviour? Paul B (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, see carefully, the abovementioned reference has been provided to show that 'gay' is equated with 'femininity' even in the west.

I have to undertake this exercise, because Neil wouldn't want to budge on his position and claims that this article is only about the meaning and usage of the term 'gay'. So, if it is used for feminine males then in all fairness we should mention that too. (Masculinity (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

To be accurate, I opposed this, "Also, a small note can be added in the introduction saying something like "the validity of the concept of 'gay' identity is disputed in non-western societies". I'm fine with Paul Barlow's suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reference that shows that In popular usage in America -- amongst straight men -- irrespective of the self-definitions given by gay people, even though they have the sanction of the heterosexual society -- only feminine males who like men are considered 'gay', the rest are not:

Reference:

Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities Dennis Altman Social Text, No. 48 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 77-94 doi:10.2307/466787 (Source: JSTOR)

"... but also of young American street kids who bash "fags" and yet will sleep with other men for money (or sometimes, unacknowedged, with each other for affection)."

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0164-2472%28199623%2948%3C77%3AROCTIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

(Masculinity (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, we all know that in colloquial English 'gay' can be used to mean 'effeminate'. So what? That fact is already in the article. It probably contributed to the recent popular usage of 'gay' to mean 'weak' or 'feeble'. Please stick to the point. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't undermine this issue Paul. It's not only in colloquial English, but the fact is that all across the Western world including not only in its straight circles but in the gay circle as well, the term "Gay" is basically about feminine male's attraction for men, and like the above reference suggests, masculine male's sexual attraction for men, although officially included in the definition of Gay, in actual usage is outside the purview of 'Gay'.

And, no, the fact is not properly mentioned in the article. Given the magnitude of this notion, its just mentioned callously in the following few words:

"Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress ("gay attire") led to association with camp and effeminacy."

This not only trivialises this fact, but also does not provide any citations for whatever is reported.

(Masculinity (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

And, Neil, here's another very specific reference that talks about a different usage for the exact word 'gay':

Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi

Quote:

Page: 102 "When these heterosexual terms (gay, homosexual) are forced upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., the sexual identity ‘homosexual’ becomes a gender identity (transgender)."

(Masculinity (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

"the fact is that all across the Western world including not only in its straight circles but in the gay circle as well, the term "Gay" is basically about feminine male's attraction for men, and like the above reference suggests, masculine male's sexual attraction for men, although officially included in the definition of Gay, in actual usage is outside the purview of 'Gay'." Masculinity, I don't think this is accurate, nor do I think you have demonstrated it to be so. Yes, "gay" sometimes is used to imply effeminate, but by no means is is always that way. Gay in colloquial English has a range of connotations depending upon the context; only some of these imply effeminate male. Aleta ^Sing 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know plenty of gay men that are not feminine. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1. All through the history till the modern age, masculine men who had sexual/ romantic relations with men (which included the majority mainstream men's population) have never been considered different from other men in any society on earth. However, almost in all of history feminine gendered males who liked men have been considered a different category from men. It's only the feminine gendered male who had a separate identity from men.

Be it the Catamite of the ancinet Greece (afterall Alexander wasn't a Catamite), or Berdache of native America, or the Pandaka of ancient Buddhist societies in the South east Asia, or the Napumsaka of ancient India, or the Kathoey of Thailand or Fa'afanine of Polynesia or Mollies of ninteeth (or is it 18th century England), or Hijras of modern day India, ..... I could get hundred more references -- in fact with proper research it can be proved that every human society on earth has a different category of gender for feminine males who like men.

2. In fact, Gay people trace their history to these categories. But tell me, was Alexander Catamite? Then how can you call him Gay? How would he feel if you called him Gay in his times? Will you let you be alive? If I remember reading it right, it was considered to be attacking someone's honour to call him a Catamite, and it was legal for that person to kill the one who called him so.

Can a masculine gendered man in a society where every masculine man has sex with a masculine gendered guy, and where feminine gendered guys are not only a distinct category, but hold an extremely lower position in society -- something that's considered extremely degrading for men --- relate with Catamites as his historical legacy?

Do you see the anomaly with the concept of Homosexuality?

3. Is it not true that the concept of Homosexuality was developed to denote these feminine gendered males, who were visibly and essentially different from 'men'? Wasn't the space or identity of Homosexual or Gay built upon this third sex space?

4. Isn't it true that every discourse on 'homosexuality' -- whether in the mainstream straight world or the 'gay' ghetto is intertwined with the trait of male effeminacy or Transgenderism (or third sex) -- including scientific discourses? In fact, it is so even on Wikipedia.

5. Aren't 'Gay' and 'bisexual' categorised together with the Transgendered? Isn't this the historical and contemporary non-western space for the third gender? How can it be a space for Masculine Gendered males?

6. Aren't their studies that clearly say that 'homosexuals' or 'gays' have biological characteristics (e.g. parts of brain) similar to women, and very different from men? What would you expect if you study a population of basically third gendered males?

Is the biological differences 'proved' by these studies really point to men's sexual attraction for men, or towards male femininity or maybe a feminine male's sexual attraction towards men? How can it be, when all through the history the majority of men (classified today as straights) have been having strong sexual bonds with other men? How can they be different from some other men on this count?

7. All through the history of mankind, men have placed a strong value on 'honour' and being part of the men's group. Anything that ruins this honour or snatches their manhood from them (which means basically remove them from the men's space/ group/ identity), men avoid that like plague, even if that is something that is the essence of their nature. Men would rather prefer death than dishonour.

And the concept of Homosexuality does just that. It brings disgrace to men. It snatches their manhood from them, and labels them with the identity of the feminine gendered male. It simply means that they are not a part of the men's pack anymore. They are different. Outcasts. And men would rather die than to accept that.

And this is how most straight men hate fags, but without acknowleding their sexual need for men, indulge in it on different pretexts. They don't acknowledge it, simply because then they would cross the line over to what is considered 'gay' in the society.

8. and that men would not hate male femininity it that identity was not enforced on them for bonding sexually with men. Sexual bonding with other men is 'their' own trait for men. If it becomes an excuse for the society to snatch their identity, break them from other men, and throw them together with the third sex, men are going to hate male femininity.

And, this is why it is important to deal with this issue on Wikipedia.

But I know, this is a sensitive issue for gays. And, therefore, I have only been demanding a space for non-Western concepts of male sexuality. Because, Western men have already lost their space to Gays. We (non-westerners) can do a lot to protect it.

So, if members of the LGBT community, like Neil, don't resist my adding that little information here (and on other such pages) even when I have provided several references -- at least for the time being I'd leave it at that, and not insist on more.

(Masculinity (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, its true that there are some non-effeminate 'men' in the gay community. But comeon, a lot of these come here only for sex, since the mainstream Western society is so hostile to sex between men. And then you can always fool some people all of the time. They believe what is taught to them from childhood, and they don't have a choice, because they think this is what life is. But they still feel uncomfortable, only they can't place why? And then, some of them invent things like g0y or 'heroic homosexuality' or like Jack write books like "discard the Gay identity".And it is equally true that the reason why the majority of men fight their sexual need for men and disown it, is only because the society equates it with 'third sex' or 'gay', which is totally wrong, but the heterosexual society does it to discourage men from indulging in sexual relations with men.

(Masculinity (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Duuuuude, you have the longest replies. You said, "Come on, alot of these [gay men] come here only for sex." Could you please explain what you mean. I'm just dying to find out. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask - please! It is becoming ibncreasingly obvious that Masculinity simply wishes to insist on the absolute truth of his own personal view of what true masculinity is. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my question. In 50 words or less, please explain your comment I mentioned above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic, What I mean by that sentence is that most masculine gendered males who come into gay spaces go there only to find sex, without identifying with the gay identity. This is my 'original research' and not part of what I want to include in the article.

And, Paul, you know pretty well, that's a false accusation. I am not discussing here about what constitutes masculinity and what isn't. I'm only talking about what gay stands for and what it doesn't. And, almost everything I say is supported by valid references (as per Wikipedia rules). Where they don't I will not ask for its inclusion.

(Masculinity (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Ok, thanks for answering my question. I, along with the majority of LGBT people, think you're absolutely wrong and that kind of assertion makes me question even more your entire argument that you want to add to this and other gay-related articles. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None of my arguments are based on that statement you're referring to and I've made it clear that its my "personal research", In years of my work with men and gays, I have observed this again and again. And also, you have no right to speak on behalf of the entire LGBT community, plus, the LGBT community cannot skirt issues of sexuality they claim to represent, like you're claiming to do on behalf of all LGBT people.

If there are valid references, it has to be included. (Masculinity (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

"I am not discussing here about what constitutes masculinity and what isn't." And yet..."the concept of Homosexuality does just that. It brings disgrace to men. It snatches their manhood from them". Paul B (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How does that amount to a discussion of 'masculinity'. This particular para is a discussion about why do men start disowning their same-sex feelings as gays start to claim it all as their own. The reference to masculinity is only incidental.

Apart from that, there are references available for most of my points. And that is what should count. Let's face the facts.

(Masculinity (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

If you think that the phrase "snatching their manhood from them" is not making a statement about masculinity then I suggest that you are living in a different universe from most speakers of the English language. You also seem to be personally committed to the individual views of Alok Srivastava, which you have repeatedly sought to present as fact. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a reference to "Manhood", but to say that I'm now discussing "what constitutes masculinity" is to misrepresent what's going on. First of all, this is not a forum to discuss issues which are not directly related with the article here, and so I see it as an "accusation".

Also, these views are reverberated all through the non-Western world, as the numerous references testify. I think, instead of dealing with the matter on hand, you are trying to diverge from it. Kindly, stick to the issues raised here ... you can ignore or deny my "original research", and concentrate on the ones for which valid references are available. (Masculinity (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

My statements in this section should not be seen as anti-transgender. On the Contrary, not only do I respect male femininity, I believe that they have been the most oppressed people in the human history, much more than women, and something should be done immediately to mainstream and integrate them into the society as people of a different, normal and healthy gender (not by aligning them to either male or female sex through sex change operation or behaviour change). It is also a common belief across the non-Western world that all men have some femininity in them, while all women have some masculinity in them. In fact, the third gender traditionally has immense respect in many non-western cultures, and they are seen to be divine. (Masculinity (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

For what it's worth. I think the addition was tastefully done and appropriate in size and placement. Even with the long detailed references (nice touch). DEZnCHRIS (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Here, gay is used only for feminine gendered males" is not true. To me, that is saying all gay males in Western cultures are feminine. I'm removing it until consensus is reached on this talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic you are making a mockery of the whole editing process, when you remove a thing without understanding what it means. "Here" in the sentence you are referring to clearly refers to Non-Western societies for which references are already provided. You should have sought a clarification, before removing it.

Also, if you thought one sentence was wrong, why was the entire thing removed. (Masculinity (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I removed it because you keep trying to plug your Non-western concepts of male sexuality article that, judging by the templates at the top of its page, is not a positive addition to this article. Also, don't tell me I'm making a "mockery of the whole editing process" when by the looks of it, your article is the one that needs help. Activism you say? Read just about everything you have written on this talk page and you will see the perfect example of "activism." If you want to discuss this further, then use my talk page, or better yet...e-mail me. I don't have to assume good faith in an e-mail reply. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You said, "You should have sought a clarification, before removing it." Um, yeah, you too bud. That's what this whole talk page discussion is about and consensus hasn't been made on what all you were wanting to insert. So yeah, you need to seek "clarification." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit rash, Agnostic. Masculine has certainly gone to bat for this and is settling with quite a compromise over what he initially proposed. Is it so painful to allow him this one brief mention? If the "Here" was unclear to you as refering to non-western cultures, which it clearly was- than maybe better wording could be suggested and agreed upon here before deleting the entire passage. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I changed that already. I still removed his article plug until it has repairs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have not noticed it, my article already has a big 'under construction' plug. So can we have the link back. In fact, with this link, many people who know about this issue will be given a chance to add to this article. I am not aware of any rule that unless the repairs are done, you cannot link it to an artilce.

(Masculinity (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

You are not supposed to judge things here according to your own whims and fancies. There is a process here. You have to abide by that process. Even if you don't agree with what is being said. I don't agree with, and neither do scores of those who believe in constructivism in many things written on these pages. But, if there are references we are helpless.

You should also undertand that while you and some others don't agree with this article/ additions, there are several who have stated that these additions are extremely important. So, at least learn to respect others point of view, as well as the Wikipedia process.

(Masculinity (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Several? Ummm, k. Obviously there have been people posting on this talk page that disagree with your proposed additions and comments about all gay men in western society are fems. So please don't make it look like I'm the only one having an issue with your proposed additions, k? I'm not judging anything, but obviously your article needs improvement or else there wouldn't be templates on it saying it needs just that. Also, did you forget about what I said about using my talk page or e-mailing me? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please post comments in order. You just added one above a previous comment and it makes it hard to respond to. To answer your question, no. There's not a rule saying you can't link to an article. But your article is highly questionable and until it has more wrk done to it, there's no reason to place a link in this article. Once you fix it up, then feel free to try to add it back. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic. This is an emotive issue, and people have strong feelings about it. There will be scores of people who don't agree with this article which disrupts their notion of the universatity of 'gay' thing. Anyone is free to question anything here. But, if there are valid references, there's not much left to oppose.

My site is still under construction, and the tags that are put there are being discussed. That should not stop people from visiting that page, in order to add to it.

Also, before I put up this article I discussed it at several other Wikipedia LGBT talk pages and I got an overwhelming response saying I should go ahead with making a new page on this, as also to put short abstracts on pages talking about issues of what is known as 'homosexuality' in the west. (Masculinity (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I saw that discussion at WP:LGBT and I'm sorry to say that I declined to respond although I had reservations. So here I am now voicing a concern. Information in the article on Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality should be concentrated there. You are free to link at the bottom of pages associated with the topic under "See also" links, but adding this information to this article or others because it's tangential to the topic is pushing your point of view, and it makes it apparent that you have an agenda to redefine male sexuality. I don't think it's appropriate. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not adding anything about 'gay' being basically a feminine gendered space in the West. Even though I can surely get enough references to warrant a short text at least. So, there is no point debating that issue. Yes, I would be glad to discuss these issues with you, although, I know, it is not going to get us anywhere. Like I said, these are emotive issues. (Masculinity (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

As far as linking is concerned, please trust Wikipedia's readers with enough intelligence so as to be able to deal with an article under construction and chip in to make the article better. (Masculinity (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Put the link in the "see also" section because it does not belong in the lead. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to unnecessarily get into an Edit War with you or anyone else, that is why I have been investing so much time in discussing things out here. Let's stick to Wikipedia rules, and if the rules don't demand it, I think you should not object to the link (Masculinity (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are those of us that think it would be better in the See Also section, like the comment just left a few paragraphs above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic, please understand that keeping in mind that this is primarily a Western Gay page, I have kept my text quite short, and that is why the link is needed. Only those who want to know more about it will click on it. Keeping it in the see also section will mean that many people who need this information -- whether they are for or against it -- may not be able to read it, for only a few people care to go through the entire Wiki page.

Do you think, it will serve anyone's purpose to put blocks to certain information. If that information is not valid or is useless, it will not have any effect or will easily be countered by people who visit these pages. Trust the truth to win in the end. That's what I do! (Masculinity (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Besides, I would love to discuss your issues with my article, as well as anything else you want to discuss on your own talk page or e-mail, like you said. (Masculinity (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Um, have you read what I wrote? It belongs in the 'See also' section. Aleta has already done that. It doesn't belong in the lead and other users agree. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If the information I have given is valid as per Wikipedia rules, and there are no rules regarding where to keep it, then I would like to keep it where I've talked about it. If that is not possible, then I'd write about this issue in detail here. You're going to hate that much more. (Masculinity (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary Section Break 2

Moni, how come its not done for me to call you or others to be indulging in gay activism, but you can blame me to have an agenda to "redefine male sexuality". If anything, I'm trying to fight misinformation and attempts to redefine non-western male sexuality.

I would be glad to put the link in the see also section. But then I would like all the issues related with the word gay for which I can find references to be dealt with right on this page. You should understand that I am doing this as a compromise. You can have your gay page and your gay information for the most part, and I'd just take a small text with a link, where it is easily accessible.

I know a lot of gay men would have problems with this. But, if you trust the side you're on, trust me, truth will find its own way. I am again asking you and others to please stick to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm doing the same. (Masculinity (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, there is no truth on Wikipedia, just information. The information has to be organized into articles. You have an entire article dedicated to what is clearly an area of interest for you that is, as I said, apparent that it's becoming an agenda. The appropriate place for allusions to Non Western Concepts of Male Sexuality is in the See Also section. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, then I will need to correct everything in the gay article that is not supported by valid references plus put make some other additions supported by references in order to make the article more balanced. (Masculinity (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

BTW, who removed the entire text again. It seems to have been done by mistake. But will people be careful here. (Masculinity (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, the "rules" about where information should go have to do with logic. Where is it logical for a certain piece of information to go. As you have already written an article on non-western views of homosexuality, it does not make sense to repeat the information here. If you can give a brief, cited paragraph, specifically about the use of the term "gay" that would be appropriate in this article. It should not go into tangential topics such as "homo" though. Aleta ^Sing 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You sound now like you're on a mission, Masculinity. Deconstructing the article on Gay even when you have an entire article dedicated to the topic of your interest is not the best idea. Don't climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Good idea to archive some of this page? With all of these looooooong replies, the page is getting lengthy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the discussion relates to a still active topic - maybe wait a week? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the first 6 or 7 topics. Most of those are old or resolved. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to, go ahead. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is a good time for APK to learn how to do that exactly since Allstarecho archived my talk page for me. First time for everything. (runs to WP:ARCHIVE to learn) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't get how to do that. I'll find someone that can do it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. Hang on. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. I don't know if it's my blonde highlights, but I can't figure that one out just yet. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Version

Do we have consensus that Aristophanes68's current edit nicely resolves the matter? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what he has done. I'm o.k. with it. (Masculinity (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Looks good. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will be archiving all the sections above this one to "Archive 4 (Masculinity)" on Friday. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please archive. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone objected and removed the entire section -- should we undo the edit? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and asked the editor to join the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Aristophanes's solution is a very good one. I hope that Zythe joins in the conversation here before trying to change it again. Aleta ^Sing 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree where the current section is located. Also, I still think the article link belongs in the see also section only. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's misplaced at the top of the article. It should be in the body of the text where the specific issue of gay identity/communnity is discussed. Paul B (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to resolve this ongoing problem I researched the source of some of the pronouncements recited as fact by Masculinity. This was in order to properly attribute them. The quotation about statistics in India comes originally from an article written by Shivananda Khan in the peer-reviewed Journal of Homosexuality. This addition was reverted by Allstarecho on the grounds that "The "Shivananda Khan" source is simply unacceptable. He's being used as a source when in fact he only quoted another source". I have no idea what that means, or why Khan's name has bee put in scare quotes, as though it's a pseudonym or something of the sort. Khan is the original source of these statements, which were later quoted from him by Pierre J. Tremblay & Richard Ramsay. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Non-western_concepts_of_male_sexuality#cite_note-16 where it says, Kahn offers a challenge to western perceptions (i.e. social constructions) of human sexualities and related labels by describing a situation in a country bordering on Afghanistan: "Who is gay in an Indian context? What is gay? Who is homosexual? About three-quarters (72%) of truck drivers in North Pakistan who participated in a recent survey published in AIDS Analysis Asia admitted that they had sex with other males, while 76% stated that they had sex with female sex workers. Are these 72% gay? Homosexual? There is sufficient anecdotal evidence to indicate that in the other countries of the sub-continent, similar levels of male to male sexual behaviors exist as part of a broader sexual repertoire. Are these males bisexual?"

Who is the source here? Khan or AIDS Analysis Asia? Additionally, this article is about "Gay". To further include content from Non-western concepts of male sexuality is simply redundant, not to mention it's content from an article itself that is in question per the tags found on it. Much of this borders on WP:OR and WP:NPOV/WP:POVFORK. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. You have not researched this at all. The quotation you repeat is from an article by Pierre J. Tremblay & Richard Ramsay, as I have already pointed out above. It quotes from the article written by Khan in the Journal of Homosexuality - as should be clear to anyone who reads it (and incidentally adds the false statement that India borders Afghanistan!). Khan is the original source, writing in a peer reviewed journal. Content summaries are appropriate in order explain meaningfully the basic points that link to a main article. The fact that this particular main article is questionable has no relevance to the reliability of the quotation itself. For example, quoting Einstein does not suddenly become unacceptable just because someone misuses his words in a dodgy article. This section of the article is not just about the history of the word as such, but about the concepts of gay identity and a gay community. This is precisely the isse that Khan is addressing, which is why I chose those specific words to summarise this relevant concept and made sure they were sourced to a peer reviewed journal. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the statistics come from Aids Analysis Asia is unimportant. The point is that the words come from Khan. Academics use their own sources. The idea of WP:RS is that we quote from the conclusions that follow for their research. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and incidentally adds the false statement that India borders Afghanistan! Well, if they can't even get the country proximities right, I sure don't put any faith in a dodgy "source". - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• But Barlow just said that the dodgy source is NOT Khan, but Tremblay and Ramsay. The Khan source is perfectly valid. And it remains valid even if the Non-Western concepts article has problems. Paul, am I understanding you correctly? Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I should apologise to Pierre J. Tremblay & Richard Ramsay for my own hasty comment about India and Afghanistan. Though most of Khan's discussion is about India, the bit they refer to is about Pakistan, which does border Afghanistan. Doh. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the information should be anywhere but at the top. Doing it otherwise is to make sure that the people who need this information do not get to it.

Also, considering the importance of this information, when the article on 'gay' talks as if, it denotes all sexuality between two males ... and considering the misplaced belief in the minds of the westerners, it is very important that it be included right in the introduction part. I settled for the top of the section only as a compromise, even though it was unjustified.

To do anything else would be an attempt to suppress the truth, so that the lie can sustain itself.(Masculinity (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

There is a sentence at the top. And it is not about "shoving" it anywhere - other than where it is most relevant. People can see the contents list. Trying to push ones pet ideas to the front is not a good way to create readable and coherrent articles. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you should show some respect to other cultures. You make wrong claims in the article, and then do not want a line questioning that assumption? If your motives are not malafide, what is the big issue in letting it be there? (Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Your preposterous accusations and persistent paranoia make it difficult to work with you. This article is primarily about the word gay and more broadly about the idea of a gay identity. In fact I'd suggest that it's you who show little respect for cultural diversity, by trying to force the whole of the non-West into a single model to fit your personal opinions. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that something needs to be said in the heading about the cultural relativity. I gave that sentence its own paragraph to make it easier to find, and directed readers to the "cultural relativity" section for more information. Is this compromise acceptable? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aristophanes. Please understand, this is not justified bargain. What is happening here is strong resistance by a group which has been given enormous power over others. They will not allow anyone to question that power.

This is not something that will end with this. Tommorrow, when we water down the whole thing some more and shift it further into oblivion, another group will come and sabotage that and then we make further compromises. This can't go on and on.

But, I'm still open to your latest suggestion, if in the original short inroduction an internal link is provided to the "non-western concepts of Western society" page. (Masculinity (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Paul, if this article is about gay, and the term is not understood in the same sense everywhere, and in fact in quite different senses, then it must be mentioned right at the top. Like you do about applying it on men and women.

You can't question my integrity or motives, because it is not me who is denying you space. It is you who is denying me space at the front. You want me (the non-western voice) to be shoved in the background, so that you can portray yourself as the universal 'truth'.

I am not doing anything of the sort. Even when I have references to prove that many of the things claimed right in the introduction are debatable. I am not asking you to change the Western point of view altogether or take it to a remote corner somewhere. I'm just asking to be allowed to stay there, right in the front, even if behind you. So that after they read your version, some may be prompted to look at ours.(Masculinity (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Asserting opinion as fact, making sweeping statements about the non-West and including ridiculously long footnotes is inappropriate. See WP:MoSPaul B (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first two are baseless accusations, and a discussion about these is always open ... if your intentions are not mala fide.

As far as long footnotes are concerned, I only did that for the ease of you guys, so that people can judge the validity of the 'assertions' without spending long hours to do it.

Again, if your intentions are bonafide, then why didn't you suggest to cut down the references instead of deleting the main text or putting it elsewhere. (Masculinity (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

We don't normally have references in the "lede", which is not a place to agitate for a a POV. And yes, your sentence is dogmatic and sweeping. It is clear POV. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No references in the lead? Actually, I think it is both quite common and preferable to have references in the lead, Paul. Should it have anything other than a neutral point of view though? No, the whole article, lead included should be neutral. Aleta ^Sing 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The lede should summarise what is in the article. The references shouild normally be in the article. That's not to say that there can't be references in the lede. There can, and sometimes it's necessary when it's a subject much argued over. It's just that that's not the ideal, and it's certainly not the place to agitate for a POV by adding "references" that are in fact mini essays, just because it's going to be the first bit that people read. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And who removed the {{Sexual orientation}} template?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a dispute over whether, how much, and where to include information about the use of the term "gay" in certain non-westernized societies. Aleta ^Sing 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with it being included at all, since it has it's own article at Non-western concepts of male sexuality and doesn't deserve anymore on this article than to be included as a See also link, I can accept the current version as of my writing this comment here. Additionally, the consensus at least shows that User:Masculinity's version, and behavior, is unacceptable to everyone but him, which speaks volumes towards the WP:NPOV issues being raised. I'd also refer Masculinity to WP:OWN, WP:DICK and WP:MASTODON. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer wording in this version [5] but with the section located in Common Usage. If the word gay means something else in different cultures then it should be noted in this article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that some comment needs to be made about the fact that the term is not universal. And any comment made to this effect should be made early in the article, not buried in paragraph 19... We might also discuss the ways some cultures have had other conceptions of homosexuality, such as the Native American berdache tradition. I worry that those of us in Western cultures have reified our own cultural definition of gay without recognizing its specific cultural origins. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The term is not universal because it's English! Surely, that's quite distinct from the question of whether concept of gay/homosexual identity is universal. Part of the problem on this page is that it's arguable whether this issue even belongs here, since the content concerns the notion of 'sexual orientation' as such, whatever the word is that might be used. I am utterly bemused by this argument that placing a discussion at an appropriate place is 'burying' it. That is the section about orientation. Paul B (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think part of the question is how much to put in the article at all, and part is how much should go up in the lead section. Aleta ^Sing 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at prior discussions you'll see I've always been arguing that any added content must be about gay as a term. However if non-western cultures use the term in a slightly different way then I think it's important to note that. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Paul, I agree that the term is limited to English, but that fact is not at all clearly stated in the lede, and it needs to be brought out more forcefully. Do we need to open the article with a comment that the term applies mostly to Anglo cultures, with some borrowings by other languages? Even that doesn't fully resolve the question about places like India, which are heavily Anglo but may have different conceptions of homosexuality.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a comment in the lede of the potato article pointing out that "the term is limited to English". We take it as given that other languages use different words for the same thing. The question here is what the "thing" is. Is there a common concept of sexual orientation? To what extent should that be discussed in this article? I don't think there is any easy answer to that. Paul B (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is some precedent in describing how an English word differs in meaning in different countries. See Billion (word) for an obvious example. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but that's different from describing an uncontroversial "thing" and the different words for it (as in the potato etymology section). Paul B (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Potato is a 'given' thing that occurs naturally, and its presence in different parts of the world is not disputed. But there are enough references to prove that several prominent experts have claimed that 'gay' or 'sexual orientation' is socially constructed, and not universally valid. So, a comparison cannot be made between potato and Gay.

Since so many experts have disputed the presence of the concept of gay or sexual orientation in non-western cultures, it then becomes a mockery of Wikipedia if this information is not prominently displayed. It may have ben different on a Gay forum where a particular POV could have been enforced without being answerable to the world. Wikipedia is different.

If there are any equivalent of the terms of "sexual orientation" or "gay" in the non-Western cultures, in the way it is seen in the west (i.e. without reference to the gender of the male) then please show a valid reference. (Masculinity (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Do you know what else is a mockery? This edit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

this 'mockery' has been added after several days of discussion on the 'homosexuality' talk page, where a consensus was reached, and several editors advised me to put a short abstract linking to the page I've created in the articles related with homosexuality and 'sexual orientation'. You can find this discussion on the homosexuality talk page. I have not been adding or subtracting anything without a general consensus, even if it takes several days. (Masculinity (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Show me where this consensus is located. Tell me this, in relation to the changes you want to make to this article and all of the other LGBT-related articles you've got your eyes on, do you think there is such a thing as a gay man or lesbian in India? (side note: Masculinity has mentioned starting an ANI thread and have admins block everyone that doesn't agree with his edits to this article) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He can start an ANI thread it he wishes (here's the link, Masculinity: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can add a request for assistance at the end). I've seen no 'consensus' for specific additions by Masculinity, only comments that he can add material if he wishes, which Masclinity seems to interpret as universal acceptance that his choice of words must stand. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what people said:

"I suggest this material be used to create a new article, perhaps Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures, with an abstract left behind in this article." Haiduc (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Agree with Haiduc, provided it's a small abstract. Also, may we know where this was moved from, and does anyone else think it's time to archive at least some of this page?" Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"I agree that this content might be used to make a good article, perhaps Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures per Haiduc, with a summary section here in Homosexuality." — Becksguy (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)

Exactly. Each editor is quite properly encouraging you to edit and add material in good faith, not providing a "consensus" that your words and formulations are sacrosanct. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did they say anything about inserting your opinion that the words gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc. are not "valid" in other countries? Also, your other addition seems to be your opinion as well. You didn't answer my previous question. Do you think there is such a thing as a gay man or lesbian in India? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To the other editors, I realize the edits I'm pointing out deal with the Homosexuality article, but I think it's important to realize where he's coming from in relation to the edits he's trying to make in this article. Knowing his agenda is important. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had provided in detail text of whatever I had to say, and none of it was my opinion. It was well supported by references. They went through all that before they gave their opinions. Here is what Haiduc said in one of his messages after reading my proposals:

"Very nice and impressive presentation, 59.178.87.8, and it touches on an issue that really does need discussion and work to increase the global viewpoint in the English Wikipedia. I strongly support that, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and my own desire to be a citizen of the greater world. I think Gay is too specific, as that is more about self identification in a specific cultural matrix."

Please note, there was no opposition whatsoever. If this is not consensus, then what is? (Masculinity (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Once again, you're not answering my question if you think there is such a thing as a gay man or lesbian in India. Seriously people, just read some of the "evidence" and material in his article that he wants linked to in this article. "The concepts of sexual orientation and identities were not present even in pre-modern European societies." How does he know this? "Sexual Orientation and Identities are peculiarly Western concepts not valid in non-western cultures." Peculiar? Not valid? "Calling a masculine gendered man a homosexual is one of the severest ways of putting him to shame. It is inappropriate." To the people that are caving in and letting Masculinity link to his article, shame on you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. At Talk:Heterosexuality, I asked for rather strong references to support the sweeping statement that notions of homosexuality are not valid in non-Western cultures. If this is actually true, then there shouldn't be any need to debate it here. Dozens of references should be available, and Masculinity should be able to supply a mainstream reference, such as a gender-studies or sociology textbook to back this statement up. Otherwise it is original research, pure and simple, and should be removed pending further substantiation. silly rabbit (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And, you're trying to add your OR in every related article and the same thing is happening, people don't agree with you and consensus has NOT been reached. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you two should stick to one issue at a time, and not jump to another issue before the first is settled. First you accused me of lying about getting a consensus. Then you accused me of writing much more than I obtained the consensus for. I would at least expect a recognition from you two that you made those accusations by mistake.

How come, so many people went through the texts and found nothing wrong with it, and you find it so unacceptable that you don't even want to wait to discuss it at the forum, before deleting and changing stuff added through a consensus?

Please note that even after this first consensus, another one was obtained in this discussion here, after days of working at it, and after reaching several compromises, again to satisfy the sensibilities of the Gay community, before the text was added to the 'Gay' section.

Don't you think you need to give some respect to all this effort put in by everyone -- whether or not Wikipedia policies say something about it or not -- these are basic human etiquettes.

You had no business to change anything, let alone delete things, and let alone relocating them, unless and until you could prove that something was horribly wrong with what was added or where it was added -- considering all the efforts that I and others put into reaching a consensus.

And on top of that you two have been going on an Edit War, without paying any heed to requests to enter into discussion about specific problems that you may have. In fact, Paul also threatened to get me blocked. I'm new to Wikipedia(Masculinity (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

"Paul also threatened to get me blocked" Oh really? I don't think so. Provide some evidence. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious you're new to Wikipedia. We have been involved in an edit war? It takes two to tango bud and my edits to these article have been few as of recent. You're edit warring with several people that obviously know that consensus has not been reached. Quit lying and saying that it has when obviously this discussion is going on. I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing 100 times to you, as is everyone else. I didn't accuse you of lying about a consensus until now. But I'm calling a spade a spade. You can wait all day and all night to get a recognition that we made accusations by mistake, cause it ain't gonna happen bud. You said so many people went through the texts and found nothing wrong with it. Then why are people removing your OR edits from this article and others? You still have not answered my question about is there a gay or lesbian person in India, so I guess I know your answer. If you don't think there are gay people in India, Indonesia, South Africa, etc. then why are there gay pride parades in these countries and countless websites stating that there are gays and lesbians that identify themselves that way in these countries? Your attempst to play the victim by implying people are vandalizing and just being a big ol' "meanie" are misguided and sad. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone take it down a notch and comment on the current content and not the contributors (take it to user talk pages if you must)? Right now there are two suggestions - leave the article as is or implement the suggestion I made earlier. Are there any other suggestions bearing in mind WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow mentioning the views of gays and lesbian in other countries is fine with me. Linking to his OR article and inserting statements that men that have sex with men, women that have sex with women, etc. are not gays and lesbians is not. I am 100% against linking to his article and saying that the terms gay, lesbian, straight, etc. are all some kind of "Western" fantasy, especially in the lead where he seems to think it belongs in all of the articles he has edited. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I want a clarification. Is it just a vote, or do we also have to justify our positions. What if I bring 10 people to vote for my position, without caring to explain it reasonably? I suggest that we should have to substantiate our positions, even if it takes days.

E.g., if I'm saying that we revert to your changes, then I have to validate my position as per Wikipedia rules. And similarly, anyone who is against reverting to the changes you/ Aristophanes made should point out specifically what is wrong -- and of course followed by a discussion about whether our claims and counterclaims hold water. This way everything will be on board.(Masculinity (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Paul, here's what you wrote, and I quote, "Masculinity, you need to understand there is a clear consensus against this. Continue to edit war and you'll find yourself blocked."

Now, as I said, I am new to Wikipedia, therefore -- eventhough I am not only trying my best to follow the Wikipedia rules, but also trying my best to play fair -- I felt harrassed and intimidated. (Masculinity (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

• It's not a vote. Please justify your positions concisely using Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anyone who reverts without discussing should be invited to participate in this discussion. Also, it would greatly help if suggestions were specific (i.e., suggest the exact text you want). Provide references only after someone asks to avoid large text dumps. We will assume good faith and trust the references are reliable initially. This does not mean references cannot be challenged subsequently. It's just a way to get concrete suggestions out there and easily read. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"I felt harrassed and intimidated." I'm biting my lip Neil, I'm trying. I have tried to explain my issues with Masculinity's edits and haven given edit links and quotes from the non-western article. So I assume everyone knows where I'm coming from? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes but I prefer to judge a person's article edits based on the article edits themselves. It may be naive but I find it more constructive to focus on each article individually. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what Neil means here, Agnostic, is that if you have a problem with something that is written there, and supported by references -- you should state specifically what your problem is. Just saying, "its your own personal opinion" without validating your claim is not enough. Also, it will help if you read the text and the references carefully before you make a claim of that sort. (Masculinity (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Can I suggest that we take the changes made by Aristophanes as the starting point, because the controversy starts after that, and then ask people if they want changes in that and why?(Masculinity (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Neil, I don't think I'm going to be able to bite my lip much longer. Masculinity (what a "clever" little name), I have read the edits (you're implying that I haven't, which is incorrect) and I have said more than "its your own personal opinion" several times as evidenced by conversations above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, (I apologize if one of you isn't a guy) please. Can we stop sniping at each other and focus on the article? Masculinity, it's pretty evident that APK has read the references. APK, can we use the Aristophanes edit as the starting point? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No issues, AgnosticPreacherKid. Would you kindly explain your issues again, specifically, now that we are doing this in a more organised manner. (Masculinity (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Let's not ask APK to re-iterate his position. If APK agrees, let's start from the Aristophanes edit. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

{ec):Read the above posts to see my issues. There's no real point of me typing it all over again since it's already been explained. Neil, where is the suggestion you're referring to because there's so much crap on this page I don't see it. (I swear to god if I encounter another edit conflict, I'm going to throw this computer out the window.) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil, good suggestion about not asking me to re-iterate. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Aristophanes edit

• I prefer wording in this version [6] but with the section located in Common Usage. If the word gay means something else in different cultures then it should be noted in this article. Specific suggestions, comments? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to this version?

The term gay is somewhat relative to culture. For instance, it may not be used or understood the same way in Western and non-Western(ised) cultures, since some Non-western concepts of male sexuality differ from those prevalent in the West. [1] [2] In such cultures, gay might refer only to feminine gendered males, while masculine gendered males who like men are not seen as 'different' from the mainstream male community.[3]

My problem with it is that it is too sweeping. It does not acknowlege that ideas and experiences in cultures are not static, but varied and contested. And what does "masculine gendered males who like men" mean? Lots of men "like men". Also, the booklet "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006", published through UNESCO, and which is cited for note 3 clearly states "the opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi". The value of this booklet as a source seems very problematic. I urge editors to read the booklet.[7] Paul B (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to run. I'll respond fully later this afternoon. Please wait for APK before trying to add this. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the "guide for peer educators" is neither reliable or notable. It is not a valid source for such general sweeping claims about either the "Non-West" as a whole or even "Indian society," which is itself obviously complex and plural.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if this text that Aristophane wrote is correct or has any validity, then, given that

(1) there is such a strong misconception about the universality of "sexual orientation" and "gay" in the West, and in fact in any discourse in English;

(2)the introduction part also talks about the terms as if they are universally applicable

(3)the introduction part does go into the detail of the dispute about the use of the term to men and women,

(4) People who could do with this information, would be those who do not relate with the 'gay' identity, and they would be least likely to go through the entire gay article to be able to read this 'qualification'.

... the text should be placed in the introduction part itself.

And, if it is proven to be invalid, and without any justification, then just chuck out the entire thing, since it is not needed then.

To not allow a mention in the introduction itself would be like not giving a prominent enough space to a fact (if it is accepted as a fact) or even a dispute that does not suit the dominant view in the West.(Masculinity (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

I seem to recall someone stating (I think it was APK) that they have Gay Pride parades in India. If this can be sourced, and if men who like men participate in these parades, then the word is also used in the western sense and putting an alternative meaning in the intro would give it undue weight WP:UNDUE. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil, while I can personally try to answer that observation, I should warn against doing our personal researches here. Like the Wikipedia policy says, we have to go by published papers, and not bring in our own research.

The so-called 'gay pride parades' have been started in Calcutta by some 'gay' activists. But as the newspaper report mentioned, these were few in number and all transgendered males.

The text that I had written specifically talked about "non-westernised spaces in traditional societies". Countries like India are going through an intense process of Westernisation/ Heterosexualisation and in these westernised spaces people follow both Indian and Western concepts (since they have been educated in that way, and some have lived in/ brought in the West). India's leading 'gay' activist is a feminine gendered guy who lived in the West and came back and has been working tirelessly for years trying to create a 'gay' like identity in India. But although, he is wary of admitting it, the fact, as often stated by another Westernised Indian, Shivnanda Khan, who was brought up in England and pumped in millions of pounds into India to create a gay identity (in the name of AIDS work), but eventually gave up and accepted that in India there is no concept of sexual orientation, but gender orientation (i.e. masculine gendered men and feminine gendered males). They even have names for these two genders: Giriya and Koti.

But, then, like I said, this will all qualify as Original Research, and is beyond the scope of this discussion. So, let's stick to published soruces. (Masculinity (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

This site seems to suggest there's someone gay in India - someone who has access to a webpage program at least. And a story about gay men in India. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research, and thus invalid.

Personally, I know there are several people who call themselves Gay. I myself have worked with the 'gay' community for some years. Actually, we called them 'gay', because that is what we were taught by our English education. But when I started working with these 'gay' men who used to come to cruising parks and gay parties, I learned that only the 'feminine' guys and the western educated/ oriented guys called themselves 'gays', while the masculine one's did not. There was another difference. The one's that called themselves 'gay' also indulged in receptive anal sex as an identity. E.g., the 'gay' identity specified that the male was into receptive anal sex. While the 'normal' or masculine gendered (or straight) in Western parlance signified the man who took the role of penetrator as an identity.

I also learned that in equal relationships, that is, between two men (masculine gendered males, in Indian context feminine gendered males are not technically 'men' but third sex), the roles were not so divided and everything tended to be mutual and reciprocative.(Masculinity (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

The article just reflects the forced imposition of Western standards by the English media. I've met E. Manohar. He is another transgendered 'bisexual', diehard gay activist. A huge part of his work involves the Hijra or the Transgendered males who like men. (Masculinity (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<then the word is also used in the western sense and putting an alternative meaning in the intro would give it undue weight WP:UNDUE>>> Neil, I don't think this is so simple as this. Like I said, large parts of metro India are going through forced heterosexualisation by the westernised media, eversince Indian media was opened to western channels. They have been continously trying to 'create' a 'gay' identity/ concept by using the word in the western sense. That doesn't mean that the people in traditional spaces or even westernised spaces use it in the same sense.

They have also been trying to introduce 'heterosexual' dating (which is an alien phenomenon to Indians) as well as Valentine Day. Indians have been protesting both. The Forces of Westernisation may win in the end because, well, they are economically and technologically powerful and hold most of the resources in our country.

I'll give an example. I live in Delhi, one of the most Westernised places in India. I am attending some part time classes, where amongst the boys, I still find a lot of sexual "masti" which I was used to almost ten years ago. We 'flirt' with each other, but still no one is 'gay'. In my office too, I had become very close to a guy, and we did a lot of flirting, including silent/ quiet sexual moves. But, he would still put down gays, making it obvious that he considers neither of us to be gay, just because we want to sleep with each other. That guy left, and another another guy started flirting with me (I'm not serious about anyone, but I do it just to pass my time and to learn), but he too often puts down gays... even when he keeps making very overt sexual moves, so much so that girls have started noticing it. He often brings his mouth very close to me in order to whisper into my ears, we send messages to each other all day on the pop, and he keeps grabbing my trousers and holding my hands. This is done in front of everyone, and its not considered 'gay'. There have been numerous such incidents. Gay most certainly means "effeminate, feminine gendered guys who seek receptive anal sex from men". Its the Forced Westernisation which we need to fight. (Masculinity (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Neil, my problems with that version is mentioned by Paul Barlow. Also, it links to the non-western concept article, which I've already stated has many problems. The above comments by Masculinity are very revealing. First, the Wired article doesn't appear to be OR. I don't know if he's just saying that since we've said his article is OR. There are many websites stating that gay people in India identify themselves that way. I don't know why Masculinity keeps putting quotes around the word gay, but it shows that he thinks there is no such thing and it also shows what kind of article he wants linked in this page. An article claiming that there is no such thing as gay. Do we really want WP readers to be shown an article that states such a blatant falsehood? Masculinity said, " I learned that only the 'feminine' guys and the western educated/ oriented guys called themselves 'gays', while the masculine one's did not. There was another difference. The one's that called themselves 'gay' also indulged in receptive anal sex as an identity. E.g., the 'gay' identity specified that the male was into receptive anal sex. While the 'normal' or masculine gendered (or straight) in Western parlance signified the man who took the role of penetrator as an identity" He's implying all men that identify themselves as gay are feminine and bottoms and that tops are the "normal" ones. Anyone that is the least bit familiar with the gay community knows this a common misconception among closeted people and heterosexuals. It doesn't matter if you're a top, you're still gay if you have sex with a man. He said, "feminine gendered males are not technically 'men' but third sex." This apparent putdown of men that prefer the bottom role is sad and I'm sure these gay men would be insulted at this accusation. Another statement: "'heterosexual' dating (which is an alien phenomenon to Indians)." I find it hard to believe a man dating a woman is some new thing to occur in India. If that was the case, there wouldn't be over a billion people in the country. When he talks about guys at his school and office flirting, grabbing trousers, etc not being gay, I find it hard to believe they would be doing these things if there wasn't some kind of homosexual or bisexual reason behind it. He said even the girls are noticing it. They wouldn't even be noticing it if it was some common practice that is supposedly normal in the country. Just because closeted guys in India insult other gay men doesn't make them "not gay." It just means they're living in a society where people still feel like they have to do those kind of things to make themselves look good. The same thing happens all over the world when scared gays are afraid to be open about themselves because they fear what others might think. In his last sentences he once again states "Gay most certainly means 'effeminate, feminine gendered guys who seek receptive anal sex from men'. Its the Forced Westernisation which we need to fight." Am I the only person that sees this as completely false? Once again, just because you are a top doesn't mean you aren't gay or bisexual. It just means you're the dominant role in the gay sexual relationship. Fighting the "forced westernisation" perfectly describes what he is trying to do with his article and with his edits to these LGBT articles. THAT is why I object to any mentioning of his link in this article and others. He clearly states his agenda is that he wants the labels gay, lesbian, homosexual, heterosexual, etc invalidated which is an insult to all of these groups of people. Letting him insert his link and material in this article is caving into his long posts, debates and threats of having us blocked. If someone wants to talk about how gays and lesbians are viewed differently in the world, that's fine. But inserting material that says this is all some kind of Western creation is unencyclopedic and false. I don't know how many times I have to state my opinion, but I am not backing down on this. To me, this is a major issue even if it's just a small paragraph with a link. He wants to completely change the definitions of these words. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, you make reference to what Masculinity says about the label "lesbian", but I'm not seeing that. As far as I can tell, he's completely ignoring females in his comments. He neither affirms nor denies the existence of lesbians, in contrast to the discussion of gay (or not) males. I'm not sure what that means, but thought it worth noting. Aleta ^Sing 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I added that by accident since he's trying to change the definition of all the other LGBT terms. But you bring up a good point, he hasn't acknowledged the word lesbian. I don't know if he thinks they don't exist or if he doesn't feel women are worth talking about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After researching a bit, I found out that if a man has sex with a man in India, he can be sentenced to prison for 10 years because technically, it's still illegal. No wonder these men do not want to label themselves. They're afraid of their psycho government. Manvendra Singh Gohil, a prince in India, came out as a gay man. Links dealing with LGBT issues in India: 1 (notice just because the BBC article says they wore makeup doesn't mean they're transgendered as Masculinity claims...some gay men at Pride events wear makeup as a statement; also it doesn't matter if there were only 100 people because as the article says gay men are afraid to even attend those events), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and check out this. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Aleta, the dynamics of Lesbian are entirely different from those of 'gay', and the repercussions of these Western labels on women are very different too. Of course, there is no indigenous 'Lesbian' Identity in India. However, the is no such resistance to the word Lesbian, as to the term Gay, for several reasons. The most prominent being, that the issue of 'manhood' means a lot for men. The much denigrated and socially outcast, Third Sex in India consists mainly of feminine gendered males, and men fear being compared with them. One of the greatest peer-pressures is the threat to isolate men as "Hijras". Most masculine gendered women are accepted as "Women". So, Lesbian identity does not attack a woman's gender identity. But for men, they are immediately seen as non-Men (namards) or the Third Sex. Apart from that, I should warn you that my information about women is negligible, since, I have not worked with women on this issue. But, I do know that almost all Lesbians are Western educated, English speaking middle class women -- and they are a handful. This doesn't mean that female-to-female sex doesn't happen in India. However, I am unclear about their dynamics. I interacted with a couple of women on these issues. Almost all of them showed that sexual feelings between women are quite common, but not talked about, at least in middle class urban spaces. I went to some girls-only schools to talk about adolescent health, as part of my volunteer work, along with a female volunteer. I found that there were one or two 'girl's couples' in almost every class. They were not seen as 'different' from the rest of the girls and there was an amazing level of acceptance as one of them. In fact, much more than there exists for boys. However, male eroticism for other males seem to be much more intense, widespread and openly displayed, but not talked about at all, because of the issues of manhood.
2. Agnostic, is there any valid reference that says that men avoid identifying with the term 'gay' because of the existence of a law? As far as my knowledge and experience goes, the law hardly makes any difference, except that it is used by the police to extort money from men who cruise for other men in parks. Don't forget that there are millions of Hijras in India, whose basic identity revolves around having receptive anal sex (which is seen as tied with their femininity). Had, the law been any deterrence, there would not have been any Hijra identity either, and there would have been millions of cases under Section 377, IPC. Since the inception of the law, there are hardly two dozen cases registered, and they're all of forced sodomy. None of them is reported to be 'gay'. Also, the said law doesn't use the terms 'sexual orientation' or 'homosexual' or 'gay' at all. Half of the cases tried under this law belong to sodomy between men and women.
3. The BBC article is a good enough source. There have been several reports in India in the newspapers about the incidence. I remember one which said, "a handful of gay activists in women's clothes marched to the jeers of watching public" in the first ever gay pride march in India.
4. Can I strongly insist to stop this personal research thing now? I don't want to respond to such points anymore. I will only respond, if you bring up a research with valid references. This is getting ridiculous. I don't think, I should have to explain all this to a non-understanding western audience. I think, this discussion should be strictly conducted under the Wikipedia "Valid References" policy.
5. Then again, this is not just a debate about India. Let's not forget other cultures, and the references from them. Don't make it an India vs the West issue.(Masculinity (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Um, researching is what WP is all about. I was asked to explain why I think your additions are incorrect and the links I provided are part of it. Also, you said there is no lesbian identity in India, although there was a movie about such a thing shows in Indian theaters. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to explain the presence of 'gay' in Westernised Indian spaces (of which I have already spoken of in my original page, but which was later reduced to just one line by editors like Paul and Agnostic).

All over the central Himalayas of Kumoan and Garhwal, the British uprooted the original forests of indigenous Banjh, pine and other precious trees, and planted European pine trees in their place. These trees spread like wildfire, damaging the ecology of the area irreversibly, sucking up almost all ground water and destroying the rare and precious shrubs that grew underneath. After about 300 years, the indegenous banjh forests have been reduced to a few pockets.

However, can you now claim the European trees to be native to India? Sure, they are to be found everywhere, but they are essentially "anti-Indian".

I remember a Discovery Channel programme, where they showed how a particular fish which was brought in by the Europeans in Australia and introduced into its rivers, soon destroyed the local population of a particular fish that abounded the area. This caused irrevocable loss to the entire eco system of the area, as these fish were an important link in the eco-system.

It is the same with cultural influences. What is happening in India is that some forces, funded heavily by Western LGBT lobby -- which is fanatically trying to subvert the original culture of India to create a Gay identity there. It is bound to have some effect. And it may tommorrow spread like wildfire, destroying the local concepts and values irrevocably -- due to their monetary and technological powers, and concentrating them in isolated ghettos. But even after 300 years, they will remain essentially unIndian, even when they start ruling the roost.

The media has been showing Indians going on dates as if that was the most normal thing for Indians to do, in order to change our culture. But that is basically social engineering. You can create space for a foreign idea into a culture, but the idea will remain a foriegn one.

The media is today trying to make public male to female kissing socially acceptable, by publishing articles that say it is becoming normal for Indian couples to kiss in public. And by printing photos of westernised Indians or models kissing. Today, there is strong resistance to the idea. But an entire generation brought up on it may start to accept it. It will, even then remain a foreign thing.

why else do you think people resent Westernisation? Why do you think couples celebrating Valentine Day in public are beaten up by the public? Because, it is a change which is being forced upon us from the outside, while we, the natives, have no voice in it. Your society, through our 'bought' citizens, air programmes after programmes right into our drawing rooms, influencing our young, and misguiding them by your lies, while we have no control over all this. This results in frustration and backlashes. (Masculinity (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

I think you are wrong again Agnostic. A lot of what I said, before I put up my final draft for my article, was cut by editors claiming that even if I have evidence to support my claim, it has to come from a valid reference -- like a University.

If it is allowed to bring in personal research, then other editors should specifically say it to be so. Then, I will allow you, but would also like to further add to my article, and the one on 'Gay' based on several evidences from the net, which are otherwise not counted as valid references for Wikipedia purpose.

I have already responded to your links.

You are asked to prove your case using "valid references" not just any references.(Masculinity (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

By the way, Agnostic, in the film "fire" which was about two traditional Indian urban women in love (and not Lesbianism per se), the word "Lesbian" was not used even once. Can you tell me why? How can you have an intense film about two women in love without saying the term Lesbian, even once -- if there is such a thing in traditional India. (Masculinity (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Paul, it is the West that is using the concept of sexual orientation as a weapon to kill indegenous identities, and instead of going through a dialogue, it wants to suppress the voice of the non-west, and impose itself through economic and technological power (media, etc.)

Here's a reference from one of Shivananda Khan's article that testifies this:

"The debate on sexualities may even at times be perceived as a form of neo-colonialism whereby Western sexual ideologies have "INVADED" Indian discourses on sexuality and identity by professionals, laypersons, "straights" or "gays," and whereby indigenous histories and cultures become invisible." (Masculinity (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

"Lesbian" was used, so it got my attention. *Ahem*. I think it's an odd dichotomy that we're discussing homosexuality as an act, but Masculinity is passionate about not embracing it as a label. I saw "Fire" and I thought it was pretty good for a movie that addressed lesbianism, that is, two women falling in love. I was even more impressed that it came from India. It doesn't matter that the word "lesbian" wasn't used in that film. Two women having a romantic or sexual relationship is a lesbian relationship. They don't have to be carrying a gay pride banner for it to be so. Two 20th century seminal novels about lesbianism also didn't include the word: The Well of Loneliness instead used "invert", and Odd Girl Out, because the author didn't know the word existed. However, just because they didn't use the word "lesbian" doesn't diminish their importance for women, or change the nature of the relationships in the novels.

Perhaps this is a cultural rift that causes me not to understand why it's preferable to perform a homosexual act, but not to label oneself as homosexual. Here in the US, should I meet someone who entered relationships with the same sex and refused to be called or use the label of gay or lesbian, I would assume s/he was having a very difficult time accepting the reality of his/her sexuality. I've never been to India, so I can't speak to any issues there. But the sources I've seen on the internet seem to suggest a small movement to create an identity for gay men. Men may have been having sex with each other for years, but it's another issue to acknowledge it publicly and proclaim oneself as someone who has sex with other men exclusively. The men who are doing that in India right now must be very brave, indeed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• But is there a difference between having a relationship and simply having sex? I imagine there are lots of people who aren't emotionally attracted to the same sex but who engage in homosexual activity when they're horny and the other person is ready and willing. I've heard it's quite common in Latin America for non-gay men to top other men without "becoming" gay in the process. In other words, simply having gay sex doesn't make a person gay, especially if there's no desire for a relationship. (And yes, I know it's much more complicated, given the number of married gay men...) Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. Men in prison or in the military go to each other and don't consider themselves gay. However, if there are willing members of the opposite sex available, and someone consistently chooses to have consensual sex with the same sex, regardless of desire for a relationship, that behavior is homosexual behavior. It's gay, although not necessarily with a Pride flag. The stigma associated with the label, in my opinion, is what keeps some people from saying what it is. Someone who seeks out same sex relations consistently, but insists on labeling him/herself as heterosexual is dealing with cultural and mental issues that prohibit them from recognizing what it is they're doing. There may be words in other languages for men who have sex with other men on the side, but continue to engage in socially acceptable heterosexual marriages. Admittedly, in the US, it's not as widespread. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can accept that. My worry is that if other cultures have different ways of defining "gay," then we need to address that in the article. It's not the same as potato, since we're dealing with a conceptual category rather than a demonstrable object. Amidst all the wrangling about Masculinity's edits, I can't tell when we're objectively concerned about his POV and when we're subjectively resisting the idea itself. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthropological studies?

There must be some relevant anthropological studies we can cite (or studies from related social sciences)? Aleta ^Sing 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are, and to be fair Masculinity has provided some good references, but most editors seem to feel that he has tended to use them as a weapon to insist on his opinions (which I also find indistinguishable from those of the author of Masculinity for Boys, who is also based in Delhi). The literature such as in the Journal of Homosexuality is good. Part of the problem is that we can't go into too much detail here on complex cultural differences, unless they relate directly to the use of the word gay or the concept of gay identity. Can we make useful generalisations about the 'non-West', or should we just note tht concept of gay identity might not exist, or might often be restricted to particular "types" or stereotypes? Paul B (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, who are these "most editors" who seem to feel that I have tended to use them as weapons to insist on 'my' opinions. I would like to hear from the neutral ones. And, is it wrong if my views tally with that of the author of Masculinity for Boys. I have been in his workshops and have volunteered for these workshops too. That should not make a difference. Its a literature published by UNESCO, and that is what counts. Furthermore, it is not the only reference used. There are references from around the world.

You know very well who they are. Don't be disingenuous. Paul B (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, I don't quite understand what is meant by anthropological study? Are the studies (amongst my references) that I have quoted not "anthropological" studies? We can try to get some more, but the problem is most of it is protected by password on the net, and you have to pay to be able to view it.

Also, please specify, on which point you would want anthropological studies for, like, that "men in India do not relate with the gay identity even when they have sex with men"?

Also, I would like those countering the statement, to provide anthropological or other studies to prove that there is no dispute with local cultures regarding the use of concepts of 'homosexuality', including by men who indulge in male eroticism, since, one thing the opponents will also agree, and that is that there IS a dispute regarding the validity of the 'gay' identity.(Masculinity (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Coming back to Paul, Paul, you are forgetting that the disputed text had actually been finalised by Aristophanes and Neil. So, how can you claim that most editors tend to feel that "I use these references as weapons".

If you live by a false dogma (in this case the belief that 'gay' is a universal concept), then you are bound to see the additions I've made as weapons, because it hurts your ego and power. Because, the concept of 'gay' does give a lot of social power and unproportionally large social space to those who identify with it, but at the cost of those who don't.

However, I can't be blamed for this. I have taken immense care to limit my words to what I can corroborate with valid references, otherwise, as the discussions show, I have much more to say -- with evidences, that can be seen as hurtful by those who have so far enjoyed absolute powers (given by their society) to define things for others.

(Masculinity (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

(ec) By anthropological study, I simply mean studies by anthropologists. I'm not sure that is technically the case with the references you've given. (Note: I'm not saying it is not the case either; you've definitely given some social science references, I'm just not certain of the backgrounds of all the authors.) I also wasn't calling for studies that say one thing or the other - merely relevant ones, no matter what side of this discussion their conclusions may support. Aleta ^Sing 05:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Nothing has been "finalized." Just because Neil and the other guy think your recent addition was fine, doesn't mean there was consensus. Paul, Agnaramasi and I have so far disagreed with your edit. To avoid mucking up this page with more endless debates, I suggest using Masculinity's talk page as a forum since he is the editor that is involved with all of these LGBT article disputes. This article is now an endless discussion. Yes, Masculinity, feel free to comment after this with a long post so you feel as if you got the last word. Peace. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are two interesting articles published in reputed journals followed by some extremely relevant quotes:

1. "Male 'Homosexualities' In India & South Asia: Culture, sexualities, and identities: men who have sex with men in India", by Shivananda Khan, Journal of Homosexuality

Vol 40 (2001)

"The debate on sexualities may even at times be perceived as a form of neo-colonialism whereby Western sexual ideologies have "invaded" Indian discourses on sexuality and identity by professionals, laypersons, "straights" or "gays," and whereby indigenous histories and cultures become invisible."

1. 'The social construction of male homosexuality' in India: implications for HIV transmission and prevention. Published in 'Social Science & Medicine', vol 52(2001).

"Due to the tendency to associate male homosexuality with effeminacy, men who wished to preserve their masculine heterosexual self-image withdrew from homosexual circuits. Thus there was a decline in the proportion of men who had sex with men who were also involved in heterosexual relationships."

"Among the educated middle classes, there is a small, but growing, movement of people whose sense of personal identity is separate from that of their family, kin group, and community and who are beginning to create new forms of sexual identity. Many of these may well call themselves lesbians, gay men, homosexuals, bisexuals, and even heterosexuals. In the main, these evolving and emerging identities are arising with the growth of urban, industrialized, and commercial cultures (including the Internet)"

"As with Indian men and women, a social distance exists between masculine- and feminine-identified MSM and it is difficult to envisage a fundamental change in these arrangements - e.g. the development of more reciprocal social and sexual relations. It is therefore highly unlikely that a collective 'gay' consciousness and solidarity can be achieved in the Indian context. Indeed, care should be taken in assuming that an incipient 'gay movement' already exists in the country (Drucker, 1996)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting link for the above paper:

social construction of male ‘homosexuality’ in India: implications for HIV transmission and prevention

Sheena Asthana(a) and Robert Oostvogels(b)

(a) Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

(b) AIDS and Anthropology Group, Anthropological Sociological Center, University of Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam, Netherlands. (Masculinity (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Another important reference:

Struggles for sexual, gender liberation rooted in national liberation movements, Lavender & red, part 113, By Leslie Feinberg, workers.org

"Resistance rose wherever European colonial and imperial powers enforced the restructuring of indigenous sexualities, gender expressions, organization of the sexes, and family and kinship structures."

"The self-identification or social organization of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people in the U.S. or Britain today is not identical to the Brazilian travesti, Zulu skesanas, South Asian hijra, Crow badé, Cocopa warhameh, Chumash joya, Maricopa kwiraxame, Turkish köçek, Moroccan hassas, Chinese tongzhi, Filipino bakla or Lakota koskalaka. Self-identification and group identities are specific to material social and economic histories."

"Every form of indigenous resistance by oppressed peoples against the sexual and gender mandates of the colonial and imperial powers is part of the fight against cultural imperialism. These battles on many fronts expose racist ideological dogma, which tries to erase world history by claiming that the way social and sexual organization is in the oppressor nations is the way it’s always been." (Masculinity (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Here's another article that corroborates the points that I have included here and in my article:

It's what you do: most of the men who have sex with men in the South probably don't identify themselves as `gay' or `bisexual'; Internationalist, Oct, 2000 by Jeremy Seabrook

"Western `politics of identity', where to be lesbian, gay or bisexual is a major determinant in the lives of individuals, is incomprehensible to many other societies.

Having said that, explicitly lesbian and gay minorities do exist in the South. In India and Bangladesh these for the most part reach only elites, those influenced by or educated in the West.

Affection, tenderness, friendship have great subtlety in societies where homoeroticism and homo-affectivity have never been called `homosexual'. Also, the majority of male-male sexual relationships do not involve anal intercourse." (Masculinity (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Here is an anthropoligical paper from Japan:

Male Homosexuality and Popular Culture in Modern Japan; by Mark McLelland  ; Murdoch University;

URL: http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/issue3/mclelland2.html

The paper describes how the West is sabotaging the indigenous notions of male to male sexuality:

"There has recently been much discussion in the field of lesbian and gay studies about Dennis Altman's theory of 'global queering'[1] which outlines the influence of the Civil Rights' Movement in the US and Europe on the development of lesbian and gay 'identities' which then, through the 'globalising' influence of post-industrial wage-based economies, consumerism, the mass media and tourism, in turn begin to affect indigenous understandings of homosexuality in societies where traditionally there has been no notion of a personal identity founded on the gender of sexual object choice. In this theory, the US is often assumed to be somehow in advance of the rest of the world and the models pioneered in that country for increasing the social space accorded to lesbian and gay lives are generalised as suitable models for lesbians and gay men in other countries to adopt."

"Unfortunately, despite the new information that has recently been made available, some researchers still insist on viewing 'homosexuality' in Japanese society through western eyes and evaluating the situation facing lesbians and gay men in accordance with western models of what it means to be 'a lesbian' or 'a gay.' An obvious example of this approach is the collection of interviews with Japanese lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual individuals collected by Barbara Summerhawk et al. and published in 1998 as Queer Japan.[5] Summerhawk complains of the 'difficulties' Japanese gay men have in 'the identity-development process' (emphasis mine) as if there ever could be a singular, universal 'gay identity' and suggests that Japanese gay men who do not wish to express themselves in terms of this imported terminology are in 'denial of their own oppression."

(Masculinity (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

This is from the Dictionary of Anthropology:

The Dictionary of Anthropology; By Thomas Barfield; Published 1997, Blackwell Publishing; Ethnology

"Influenced in part by the works of Michel Foucault, recent theorists of culture and sexuality have begun to question the applicability of Western notions of homosexuality and heterosexuality to non-Western cultures." (Masculinity (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

It seems to me that wikipedia is not a dictionary, and should not be pedantically bound by dictionary-style definition rules. The concept of 'Gay' (and it is a concept, not a word), is extremely problematic, as is shown by the issues invloving women and bisexuals which are given such prominent treatment at the end of the main paragraph. Why does the non-Western problem with the concept need a second paragraph, as if its challenges are completely separate from experiences in the West? The truth is, the ambiguity of the gay identity goes straight to the core of Western male experience, as is seen with the 'downlow' phenomenon in the black community and the 'g0ys' phenomenon among evangelical Christian males in the U.S, and as attested by the personal experiences of Pierre Tremblay, author of cited articles above. There is no 'neat' way to package the gay concept, and that is better made clear right up front in the opening paragraph. ----Taeda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taeda (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The modern heterosexual society deliberately redefined the third sex space as 'homosexual' in order to give the final blow to man's sexuality for men. It gave extreme space and power to the newly created 'homosexual' group, which made sure that the voice of men (who were now rechristened 'straights' or 'heterosexuals') was disempowered to speak for their rights on this issue. Homosexuals are the biggest tool that the oppressive 'heterosexual' society has to keep the mainstream men from loving men.

I am greatly aware of this fact, I've spoken with western men and found that they have the same issues as men in non-western cultures, but decided to stick to non-western world since: (a) in the West, the Gay community is extremely powerful and men have almost no voice in this matter, (b) I was alone and knew that even adding something from about non-West will take immense fight.

However, the concept of 'gay' has been disputed vehemently in the West, and big time scholars and experts have raised their voice against it. The heterosexual society just managed to sideline their protest, while empowering the 'gay' space. There is no reason why this dispute should not be mentioned in a balanced way in this article.

If there is even a small amount of consensus on this, I would like to put a "disputed fact" and other relevant tag on this article, calling for a radical change in its contents. I'll need some support for this(Masculinity (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

So, where is everyone? Where is this heading to? Remember, the editors who are seeking a change from Aristophanes position need to give their strong reasons supported by valid references to make any changes from that point. (Masculinity (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• As a Westerner, I have no problem conceiving that Western ideas of homosexuality might be culturally based and not applicable to other cultures. This does not mean there is no same-gender sexual activity, but simply that homosexual activity is not always what defines homosexual identity. Likewise, you can be gay without being sexually active. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons have been given, but your graphomania and unwillingness to simply discuss specific wording effectively destroy any attempts at meaningful consensus building. The original proposal has been lost in a sea of verbiage. I suspect other editors have simply given up on attempts to create consensus. Also, it's Easter. Some people are on holiday. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Masculinity has made some extremely valid points that I agree with ( They even ring true with my travels within the West, like France, for instance, but that's a non-issue). And I don't understand why there is such an insistence to discredit him. He has been saying the same thing using many reference and anecdotes. I think he should be allowed to make more of a statement in the opening paragraph than the current sentence and he should be allowed to add another anecdote as an example to the "cultural relativity" section because I think the stories speak louder than words.

While I understand the whole "third gender" perspective, I couldn't see it being added simply because it is so foreign an idea that the majority of Western people reading the article wouldn't take the time to understand what it is actually saying and they'd be offended by what it sounds like it's saying. (What are you calling me...?!)

I agree, with whoever, way up there somewhere, liked this version. "The term gay is somewhat relative to culture. For instance, it may not be used or understood the same way in Western and non-Western(ised) cultures, since some Non-western concepts of male sexuality differ from those prevalent in the West. In such cultures, gay might refer only to feminine gendered males, while masculine gendered males who like men are not seen as 'different' from the mainstream male community." It is much preferred over the current sentence. I like the wording "prevalent in the West" and I like that it states the "term gay". The only thing I dislike about it is that I would like to see the "(ised)" removed. It's just unnecessary clutter. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:RSN#Masculinity_for_Boys. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added some important information at the page RSN#Masculinity_for_boys. Those interested in this discussion may please have a look.(Masculinity (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

So? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That wording has been discussed, and could continue to be discussed. Masculinity only has himself to blame for the failure of that attempt. Stories may speak louder than words, but they are also inherently unreliable, both because they can be misleadingly unrepresentative, and because they can be sheer myth. Personal anecdotes are not acceptable under WP:RS or WP:V. Paul B (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

In response to the request, may I just point out, since nobody seems to have done so, that in ancient Greece it was normal for men to be bisexual? Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that the concepts of sexuality in the ancient times, in what is today known as the West were the same as those in the non-Western societies today, then I totally agree, and that should be noted as well.(Masculinity (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

I find it odd that when I read this article, I read a very one-sided account of what "gay" means. And here there is an opportunity to fix that. And I realize that for some guy sitting at a computer in the west, it may not matter to them that this article is in their point of view- but that's not right! Open your eyes to your own hypocrisy and stop blaming masculinity for going to bat for an injustice that he lives with. And that anyone who travels can plainly see. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What "gay" means is how the word is used. I don't think anyone here has disputed that sexual mores have changed over history and differ between cultures. But we can't explore all the differences of sexual norms throughout history and around the world in this article, which is about the word gay and the concepts specifically attached to that word. As for Masculinity, I'm not sure how he somehow "lives with" an "injustice". Do members of the Wikipedia LGBT project control life in Delhi? One of the problems is that he seems much less interested in creating an NPOV discussion of sexuality relevant to distinct articles than to promote a set of dogmas. We could have resolved this in no time at all with a little good faith, flexibility and sticking to the essential point. Paul B (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, then lets talk that. The only issue I see as relevant to this article is about how the word itself and the concept is used and understood differently in different cultures. I agree that there was a lot of banter about things outside of the issue. So to return to the point, what problem is there with this addition replacing the current sentence in the introductory paragraph:

"The term gay is somewhat relative to culture. For instance, it may not be used or understood the same way in Western and non-Western cultures, since some Non-western concepts of male sexuality differ from those prevalent in the West. In such cultures, gay might refer only to feminine gendered males, while masculine gendered males who like men are not seen as 'different' from the mainstream male community."

You wrote up above that it was "too sweeping", which I don't understand. And you don't like the "masculine gendered males who like men" part. The problem is that, this is an accurate wording to describe how the word is used in several non-western cultures. Can you think of better wording to explain it? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too sweeping because it makes generalised claims about "cultures" and about the attitudes of people in general within them, without acknowleging that multiple views and attitudes exist within cultures and between them. I also think that the phrase "feminine gendered male", although very "PC", is likely to be very confusing to the general reader. In some academic contexts the term "gender" is used to mean social models of maleness and femaleness as opposed to biological differences, but in common English no such distinction exists. I'm sure many readers will not understand what a "feminine gendered male" means, and may consider it to mean "a man who is a woman", which is nonsense. I'd prefer "effeminate" (or just "feminine"), since that is clearer. Some people might object that the former is a derogatory term, but any term, including "gay", can be derogatory if you don't like the thing it refers to. I have seen no evidence that "masculine gendered males who like men" is accurate. The same problem applies to "masculine gendered" as to "femine gendered", and the evidence presented here does not generally relate to the use of the word gay, except perhaps in English speaking groups within India, and even that is very unclear. "Like men" means nothing. If "have sex with men" is meant, then that's what it should say. I'd prefer something quite different, which makes no specific claims about models in the "non-West" in general, because as soon as you do so, you open yourself to the criticism that it's not true of culture-X, culture-Y or culture-Z. That's why I added "Outside of Western culture the concept of "gay" identity is less clearly defined and may clash with local models of sexuality." More detail then is then present in the section on the topic. However it could be added that in some instances the term is used as a synonym for "effeminate" without reference to the concept of sexual orientation, though even that isn't by any means unique to non-western cultures. As User:Taeda says above "Why does the non-Western problem with the concept need a second paragraph, as if its challenges are completely separate from experiences in the West?" Paul B (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you don't like that it's too sweeping but you acknowledge like Taeda, that this is more than a non-western issue, the challenges are also present in the west. That's what I don't understand. It is a bit sweeping, but the reality is a bit sweeping too. The only part that I see as valuable is the point that sometimes, particularly in some other cultures, only effeminate males identify with and are identified by the term gay within their culture. And that a person who sleeps with someone of the same sex is not considered a part of this term within that culture. Would this work?

Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West. In some cultures, the term identifies only effeminate males while a person who engages in sex with another person of their same gender isn't necessarily identified as gay. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this debate for a while without getting involved, but I'd like to throw some support to the suggestion made above. DEZnCHRIS's proposed sentence seems to clearly and fairly inform readers about the issue without giving it undue weight or going into unneccessary digressions. Doesn't this seem like a very reasonable compromise that everyone could live with? Doc Tropics 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"So, you don't like that it's too sweeping but you acknowledge like Taeda, that this is more than a non-western issue, the challenges are also present in the west. That's what I don't understand. It is a bit sweeping, but the reality is a bit sweeping too." No, reality is complex. Statements made about reality may be sweeping. If I say 'the French are cleverer than the Italians' that is 'sweeping'. Pointing out that there are also clever Italians does not make it 'more sweeping', it makes the facts more complex, and problematises the sweeping statement. The fact that the last sentence is also sometimes true within western societies (famously in prisons) is a complication, but for the sake of peace let's go with your suggestion. Paul B (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, complex. Did you just agree to the version up above? Do we get some more feedback before it gets changed or do I change it now? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me as well. Aleta ^Sing 04:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the proposed language? Fireplace (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the above version given by DENzChris to be too watered down. It doesn't bring out the immense clash that exists and has been documented by several important sources. While the western version has been explained in detail, there is just a small mention of this clash between cultures, about which there should not be any dispute after going through so many sources. To be frank, it will not make much difference whether this addition is put or not put. I think, a better thing to do would be to include some of the quotes directly from some of these sources. (Masculinity (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The way I'm reading this, neither party is happy with the compromise suggested, but both can live with it. The proposed addition hasn't specifically been sourced yet, but Masculinity has provided several refs that support the gestalt. Doc Tropics 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can live with it, if a link is given to the page "non-Western concepts of Male sexuality" in this text itself. Then I don't have to talk about it in detail on this page itself. In this light, I propose the following amendment to what is suggested by DenZChris: Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West, due to variances with some non-Western concepts of male sexuality. In many traditional non-Western cultures, the term 'gay' signifies only effeminate males while a non-effeminate male who engages in sex with another man is considered part of the mainstream male community.(Masculinity (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Any edit with a link to that article will NOT be consensus. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, I respectfully disagree with you. Eeryone is trying to compromise here. We have the other article; it is reasonable (and, in fact, expected) to make links to it from relevant articles. I understand that you have concerns about that article. We should deal with those there. Aleta ^Sing 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Aleta. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, I entirely understand your concerns, however Aleta is completely correct, in that we are expected to provide links between related articles. The quality and even the existence of said article is something to be addressed on its own talkpage, but as long as it exists, it should be linked. Doc Tropics 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is the issue here. Is the issue here that there is still doubt whether there is actually a clash between cultures, or is it that this clash would not be allowed to be reported here because a powerful section does not like the fact that there is a clash? Isn't there something like giving space to the minority in a democratic setup. The entire gay article talks about things from a Western point of view. So why not give the less privileged some space at least to voice an opposition. Why is the powerful so hell bent on not giving even a small space to the minority, when all Wikipedia requirements have been comlied with. This is against the spirit of democracy, which is one of the positive things what the West has taught us.(Masculinity (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

This is also against the spirit of Globalisation, which entails that both the West and the East learn from each other while not thrusting themselves on each other. Surely, the Western concepts are not so delicate that they will collapse if they are questioned in the East. I'm sure the Western concepts are stronger than that. Suppressing the voice of opposition so that one enjoys absolute power is a typical "Oppressor" mentality. Gays are supposed to be "oppressed" not "oppresors".(Masculinity (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, please keep in mind that WP is not a democracy, nor is globalisation one of our five pillars. While many of the points you've raised here and elsewhere certainly warrant consideration, any assertions that there is some kind of oppressive gay conspiracy will need to be backed up by extremely solid sources or they will not likely be taken seriously. Doc Tropics 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were correct, but look at what we are doing here. despite providing several references text sought to be included here, we are unable to make the changes because, just because some people don't want it, and they have given no valid Wikipedia reason for doing so. (Masculinity (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Is there a reliable source for the proposed text that clearly backs up the statement? I see lots of quotes above, but the discussion is long and confusing. Fireplace (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the statement, especially the phrase "In many traditional non-Western cultures, the term 'gay' signifies only effeminate males", since so far the only piece of evidence I've seen is about the term gay relates to (presumably) English speaking students in India. The idea that term 'gay' is used in "traditional non-western cultures" at all is highly dubious. As I say, I prefer the shorter sentence, and think that the complexities should be dealt with by referring to specific cultures rather than making sweeping assertions. But frankly, I'm just sick of this. Paul B (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true in several parts of Africa, in Latin America and in Japan, too. There are many documented references for this peppered over the internet, but no one person has digested it into a single source. Each one would require a separate reference. That seems kind of tacky to have 5 references at the end.

There was a lot of work done in these non-western countries because anthropologists were trying to show that there were gays that existed (to refute the claim that whites created "being gay"). The reason anthropologists had trouble and the reason that certain groups were able to claim that only the whites had gays was because sexuality was more fluid in other cultures, they never separated people out according to whom they slept with, unless you were an effeminate male. And these cultures all have a word for that that is translated gay. And now "gay" is used to mean effeminate males in many of these cultures. The slightest google search confirms this but it's spread out among many sources from many cultures. That's why using Masculinity's page makes sense because it's distilled into one source.

Also, I don't mind Masculinity's wording but the west vs. nonwest wording is redundant and would get edited out over time by every passing Wikipedia editor. It's best to make a streamlined statement now than opening it up to getting messed with every other day. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's true in several parts of Africa, in Latin America and in Japan, too." 'It' being the use of the word gay? If that's so provide the references. We don't need to add them in the lede, per MoS, but we can add them in the relevant section. If you have these references, bring them together here, don't leave them scattered. We can then expand the cultural relativity section with proper sources about the specific topic of this article. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While practices of homosexuality and cultural attitudes towards people who have sexual relationships with the same sex certainly differ from one culture (or one person) to another, the article in question is about the English word "Gay". I understand that there are quite a few languages in India (like, 300, or some such incomprehensible number to an American who struggles with Spanish). In countries where English is not the primary language, these nonWestern countries, how often is "Gay" in English used? If it's used, is it a cognate, or a mistranslation? How are we to know the context it is being used? Clearly there are articles regarding the concepts of homosexuality and lesbian, so it has occurred to me that this discussion may not be relevant unless we know beyond a shadow of a doubt how people in other countries specifically use the English term "Gay". --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Moni, how competent are editors here to do a research on their own on how the term is used in non-Western cultures. We have to go by the references. You can't insist on references where it suits you, and then totally ignore them and try to judge things on your own understanding when it doesn't.

(2) There may be 1000 of languages in Indian and millions in other parts of the non-West. But what is common across cultures is the concept of a third gender, which has come to characterise an effeminate male who indulges in receptive anal sex -- who is distinguised from the mainstream, masculine gendered male population, that in the west consists of straight identified men.

Therefore, if the word 'gay' is thrusted on these cultures (let's say in the name of AIDS prevention), then they will most naturally use it to refer to the concept of third gender that is so entrenched in their cultures. And, it will be the same across the millions of languages. (Masculinity (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Moni, we did debate earlier about the English word gay... I understand what you're saying but in all fairness... English is known and spoken.. and whatever information could be added to this English language article about other cultures would be the most beneficial to English speaking westerners who export their culture unwittingly through missionary service/ gay tourism/ humanitarian work without realizing that they may be trying to fix something that isn't broken. They are making outsiders of people that are currently integrated into the mainstream. That last statement I just made, as far as I can tell, can't be stated in the article, as it would clearly be Original Research, based on real documented research and basic knowledge if you've traveled, but not able to be sourced. But the rest of it is out there in sources.

Here is a document outlining what anthropological studies have dug up in the way of LGBT in a sweeping array of non-western cultures. [www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/queerant.html] It's long and it's hard not to pull out a dozen applicable quotes here and there that summed up would make my argument- but for the sake of brevity I'll just pull this one out because, as I see it, it explains why this should be included in this article. It's "cautionary" because of the influence that the west has abroad through media and direct contact. And isn't it kind of a shame any time you see a local cultural attribute being eroded by the big powerful outsiders?

Processes of globalization have touched all of them. This is very clear in the case of gay culture, though less so for lesbian culture (see however Wieringa, 1989). Gay bar life is becoming everywhere quite similar, and also the gay habitus. A gay man from Asia can easily recognize many signs and habits of gay men in New York, Amsterdam or Mykonos. A global gay culture emanating from the Western world, especially from the United States, has come into existence through networks of gay men, sex tourism, exiles, media representations and so forth. This globalization of gay culture deeply influences gay experiences everywhere, but the way it is experienced and practiced will remain mediated by local and idiosyncratic factors. On the other hand, local same-sex cultures that work on different models of desire, behaviour and courtship, continue to exist. But in many places, such worlds have been exterminated as happened with Melanesian initiations (Herdt, 1985) or the Uzbek tradition of bacabozlik (boygame) under Russian and Soviet rule (Baldauf, 1988). Discussions on global versus local cultures as they have been developing recently are especially important for gay and lesbian studies.

The brief mention in this Wikipedia article only says that in the smaller local non-western cultures, in a sweeping variety of them, they have a different understanding of the gay concept. Exactly what this anthropological source says DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"globalization of gay culture deeply influences gay experiences everywhere, but the way it is experienced and practiced will remain mediated by local and idiosyncratic factors." This is exactly what the sentence that I proposed stated. It makes no sweeping claims about what 'the West' and the 'non-West' believe, or that every 'non-western(ised)' culture is identical. In contrast, it says that "local and idiosyncratic factors" mediate the claim that there is a clear distinction between 'gay' and 'straight' identity. That seems to me to be the best was to speak of the issue, anmd it's exactly what was proposed by the sentence "Outside of Western culture the concept of 'gay' identity is less clearly defined and may clash with local models of sexuality." Paul B (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your consistency ideas, but perhaps this article is not the appropriate place to address the use of the word "Gay" in India or any other country where the word is so rarely used it has no meaning to the majority of people. I'm not saying you shouldn't address issues of gender, masculinity and femininity in men or women in nonwestern cultures, but such a discussion should probably go in the articles of homosexuality, gender, masculine, feminine, and the article you created.

This article discusses the term "Gay", how it evolved to mean homosexual, and how the term is used. If it is not used by people who speak other languages, how can information about other cultures where the word isn't used be included? The article for Homosexuality discusses same-sex relationships and the roles of men and women within same-sex relationships, and I think that would be more appropriate than this article for your ideas. --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But this IS about how the term is used. The proposed addition states that we are talking about "the concept of gay identity" and the source I gave above specifically speaks to research done in the native american, Indonesian, Spanish-speaking American, and Indian cultures that have a word for the effeminate male but not for the guy he sleeps with (or is married to). Our word GAY is being exported to them to mean what we think it means but they are understanding it to mean what they think it means. So this addition hold water. Doesn't it?

Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West. In some cultures, the term identifies only effeminate males while a person who engages in sex with another person of their same gender isn't necessarily identified as gay.DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the "Queering Anthropology" article you quoted above. It has information that would be relevant for the homosexuality article. But, it doesn't seem to specifically address non-western uses of the term gay, which is what this article is about. I'm sure there is a reliable source talking about that. Fireplace (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a need to acknowledge that a lot of "reliable sources" have already been given on the topic, so please don't sound as if it hasn't. And, how does it matter whether the article specifically addresses the topic in question or deals with it along with a larger concern. The important thing to note should be that it has raised the issue or thrown some light on it, and it comes from an important source. Of course, like you said, there are other references quoted which specifically deal with the topic at hand.(Masculinity (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

• If the thought is that the debate is valid but not appropriate for this article, what if we used a disambiguation tag at the top of the article to direct interested readers to the Homosexuality and to the Non-Western Masculinity pages? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds interesting. As long as it is not vague and someone who could benefit from the information (that the word 'gay' although being thrusted upon him through media and other western supported agencies in his own culture has been recognised as having a different meaning in the non-West) is not deprived of the information just because the wordings were not clear enough to make him want to click the link. (Masculinity (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

A lot of reliable sources have been given. The problem is that they don't necessarily say what you want to say. They draw attention to complexities of cultural difference, certainly not that the term gay has a different meaning, or that there is a universal concept of a 'third sex'. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you can put something like, this article discusses the use of the word 'gay' in Western societies. For non-Western concepts of male gender and sexuality (or masculinity) see this (link). (Masculinity (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Would the same treatment be warranted for a disambiguation for lesbian or bisexual? I don't think so. There's an article for "Lesbian" and the cultural implications of relationships between women, just as there is an article for pederasty as it applies to traditional male relationships. They are linked in the article where appropriate. To disambiguate all considerations of homosexuality from this article would take up too much space. I maintain Nonwestern Concepts of Masculinity should be linked in "See also". It does seem we're rather back to square one, but what other way is there to treat this issue? --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And why do you think the same treatment should not be given to Lesbian or homosexual or "Heterosexual" or any other article if it can be shown that there exists a difference in the use of these terms in certain quarters? Do you have a valid reason for that? Of course you do realise (don't you) that this is being considered only because some people here do not want to discuss this difference in detail on this page, nor do they want to give a link with a short description, despite the fact that there is a general consensus now that there is a difference between the use of the term and concept of 'gay' between the West and non-West. (Masculinity (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

The point of the article I gave was to show the anthropological research. The reason that the very mild requested addition should be made to this article is because "gay" is the term people use and would search and is the term and the concept that is understood differently in different cultures. When a scientists writes, he writes homosexual, when a person speaks they say gay. That resource very much applies to this article. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that a link to this debate should also be given in the article, perhaps in the see also section.(Masculinity (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I have another compromise. We don't talk much in this article but just put a small link in the introduction. Something like:

Some sources claim that the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures, due to differences between the Western and non-Western concepts of male gender and sexuality.(Masculinity (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

"Some sources claim that the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures", but none of your genuinely good sources say that. They say - quite reasonably - that the concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures (not the "non-West" as a whole) and that attempts to create a 'gay consciousness' in such cultures can lead to problems and confusion of identity. This is a fair point to make and many good sources make it. It's why that aspect of the issue has been included here in its own section. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "genuinely good sources" have spoken in terms of West and the specific non-Western cultures, like India, China, Arab, etc. But, please note that when they all specifically use the term "West", that means that they consider the entire 'gay' thing to be primarily "Western", which means that it is not in the non-West.

And it is not that none of these "reliable sources" (if you mean those by universities, etc.) have used the term West vs non-West. Here's at least one such source (this is available on the net):

The Dictionary of Anthropology; By Thomas Barfield; Published 1997, Blackwell Publishing; Ethnology

"Influenced in part by the works of Michel Foucault, recent theorists of culture and sexuality have begun to question the applicability of Western notions of homosexuality and heterosexuality to non-Western cultures."

Now, in the light of all these references, the onus is now on the objecting side to find out if any source does claim that there has been something like the 'gay' identity prevalent in any part of non-West. If you can find even one -- and if there is any doubt about it, there must be at least one such reference in all of the world -- then I'd change/ qualify the word "non-West", and that is a promise.

But in all of this, don't forget that the above wording is yet another compromise on our side. While the pro changes side has made several comprises, its your turn to give up some ground.(Masculinity (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Another "genuine source": Massad, Joseph Andoni 1963-

Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World Public Culture - Volume 14, Number 2, Spring 2002, pp. 361-385; Duke University Press http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.2massad.html

"Following in the footsteps of the white Western women's movement, which had sought to universalize its issues through imposing its own colonial feminism on the women's movements in the non-Western world -- a situation that led to major schisms from the outset -- the gay movement has adopted a similar missionary role" (Masculinity (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Do you even read what people say before repeating your mantras? You certainly give the impression that you do not. I'm sure that's why many other editors have simply given up trying to talk to you. You write "Now, in the light of all these references, the onus is now on the objecting side to find out if any source does claim that there has been something like the 'gay' identity prevalent in any part of non-West" And how is that supposed to be a 'reply' to my statements, which fully accepted that the "concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures" but which resisted making generalizations about the 'non-West' in total. None of the passages you quote make any such generalisations, and none of them say that "the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures". In fact they completely contradict that assertion. One simply speaks of a questioning of Western models, and the other states that a specific model ("the gay movement") has adopted a missionary role, a point that is already made in the current article by the quotation from Shivananda Khan. I've added the Massad quote, but now it may be unbalanced by stressing to much one POV. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but, doesn't your statement above "They say - quite reasonably - that the concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures (not the "non-West" as a whole)" mean that you are questioning my inclusion of the word "non-West".

Isn't this the issue. The use of the word non-West, for which you claim there are no sources? And doesn't the sources I just provided specifically claim that (what you call generalisation) there is no concept of 'homosexual' or 'gay' identity in the non-West?

I'm afraid, if there is generalisation at all, it is by the specific reference which is as genuine as you can get.(Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<And how is that supposed to be a 'reply' to my statements, which fully accepted that the "concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures" but which resisted making generalizations about the 'non-West' in total>>>

How are you fully accepting if you oppose the word Non-West, and water down the fact by using the words "many cultures". There is a clear distinction between West and non-West used by all sources, some as West vs specific non-Western countries, and at least two references talk about West vs Non-West as a whole.(Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't "oppose the word non-West" I oppose the way you use the word and the general claims you make for 'it' as a totality. I never claimed that there were no uses of the term, but that there were no uses that supported the way you deploy it. I have given my reasons. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K., let me review the points you're making. That the word 'gay' is not applicable to men who have sex with men in non-Western cultures per se, I think there is no dispute on that, am I right?

Now you're saying that there is not evidence from all of the non-West that gay is used differently than in the West. There are two points I'd like to make for this:

(1) That the word 'gay' in non-Western cultures is used mainly by Westernised, middle class effeminate males who like men, for whom the indigenous identities are too 'unsophisticated', since they are English educated, elitist -- is common knowledge across the non-West, as attested by editors participating in this discussion, who have been to or lived in the non-West.

(2) Now, we may have references only from a few places, including India, thailand, etc., though indirect references are given in several places. However, since this is such a widespread universal situation in the non-West, if this is not allowed to be added, then in all fairness, the entire article on 'gay' should be redone and be based only on what can be directly validated through references. Are you ready for that?(Masculinity (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

"That the word 'gay' is not applicable to men who have sex with men in non-Western cultures per se, I think there is no dispute on that, am I right?" Of course there is. It precisely the point that it is not appropriate to talk about "non-Western cultures" in that way. The word gay may be applicable or not, depending on how it is used and in what context.

"That the word 'gay' in non-Western cultures is used mainly by Westernised, middle class effeminate males who like men". Again this is pointlessly sweeping, and no evidence has been provided that it's true, apart from in one one specific context, and that doesn't even differ much from common Western use of the word gay by adolescents to mean "girlish".

"Now, we may have references only from a few places, including India, thailand, etc., though indirect references are given in several places." I see no references from Thailand, just a survey of some Indians, which is from the disputed and unreferenced "Masculinity for Boys" document. It's very typical of this document, in that it is very unclear what the actual context is and what the sources are. The passage you quoted refered to men being interviewed by an unnamed "NGO", who "described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’." Now what "two masculine men" are being referred to here? Are these also characters on Indian TV (which I rather doubt)? I see no evidence that like is being compared with like. I've no reason to doubt that a similar survey of a TV character in the West might produce similar results, if a character was very effeminate. Since we also have no information about the context, it's also very difficult to judge. Are openly homosexual men depicted on Indian TV? I don't know. You tell me. If not, the viewers may well interpret the character as a coded "homo", even if he is not explictly portrayed as such - that was the case in western European countries before homosexual men were portrayed as such openly. So much detailed knowledge of context is required that the generalisations dissolve into meaninglessness. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To argue with a gay about this issue is like banging your head against the wall.(Masculinity (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

One problem not mentioned yet is the association of the term "homosexual" with medicojurdical abjection. It was originally used to discuss perversity and abnormality in medical journal is the 19th century. Thus, even this term is not universal as is claimed above. "Homosexual" emerged out of a heterosexist climate. I suggest that "gay" be used in its place. At least this term isn't bound up in a very long, very offensive, and very controversial history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.180.136 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not true at all. For masculine gendered males (men in non-western world and straight men in the west) have always had a problem with the very concept of 'gay'. You have to understand that its the concept of gay/ homosexuality that is problematic, no matter what you call it. Even if you look at the origin of the word 'gay' itself (which of course this article on gay manipulated by the powerful lobby here which only wants to have its own way irrespective of what the rules say), gay was originally used for "whores" and "sexually loose woman" which was later used for queer, feminine, frivolous males of the third gender (which they had officially called "homosexual"). And that is what is the problem with gay. the same as with 'homosexual'. But those belonging to the third gender will never understand how these concepts harm men and the cause of the love between men. because this gives members of the third sex power, they will never want things to change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)

Reset indent. Are we back on this again? That was a pleasant break...I still maintain you're trying to work something out through Wikipedia, Masculinity. Something that appears to be very complex for your culture. Your association of the word "Gay" with less masculine men is not as prevalent in the general usage of the term. Here, gay is gay - two people of the same sex who are romantically and/or sexually attracted to each other. Your term "Third Sex" or "Third Gender" was used commonly in the US about 50 years ago, and is hardly ever used today, except when referring to a time when homosexuality was not discussed. Regardless, you said it yourself: the concept of homosexuality is problematic. That is where your argument lies. Not with the Gay article. Gay is a word in English that has gone through changes in its use. To apply Indian or other Asian concepts to a word that has had a history only in English-speaking countries is a fallacy. Nothing harms men and the love between men but the lack of confidence those men have in its validity. Adding irrelevant information to this article cannot change that. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to press for any changes to any of the Wikipedia's article here. I and others who canvassed for it hard and gathered several valid references are convinced that the gay lobby is pretty strong in the West, and it will not allow the truth to be acknowledged on such platforms. So, basically, Wikipedia, inspite of all its claims to be based upon strict policies, eventually has no mechanism against prejudices and unfair practices by politically and socially strong groups, even when they manipulate, reinvent and suppress information.

I made a post here, only as a reply to the above poster who claimed that the word 'gay' is less problematic. If the concept of homosexuality is problematic then any synonyms for it would be equally problematic. And, its not that your lobby has allowed changes to be made in the article on homosexuality. So this line of argument of yours doesn't hold water too. But then, when you're the powerful majority (at least you seem to be the majority since men don't have a voice in this matter), who cares about rules and fairness.

I can gather enough evidence from the Western society itself that although the word 'gay' is not officially acknowledged as being used for queer/ feminine gendered males, in practise it remains the same as it was originally -- the third gender. Even Western institution of science works on that line. There are any number of 'scientific researches' that 'prove' that 'gay' men have brains similar to those of women, rather than men. That the rate of responsiveness of their eyelids is the same as that of women, and not of 'straight' (read masculine gendered) men. Gay men are mostly portrayed in popular media as queers/ effeminate males. The Gay community itself calls itself 'queer', and aligns with the transgendered.

It's again a lie that the word 'gay' applies only to western societies. It's true that it doesn't till now, but its equally true that the forces of westernisation/ heterosexualisation which are very powerful are bent on enforcing the gay identity on Indian men through the control of powerful institution of Media. And that is why it is important to give the non-Western perspective to it. Because, eventhough its a peculiarly western concept it is being thrust upon us.

But who am I arguing with. The powerful forces who are forcing their concepts on us. Why would they listen to us? The powerful doesn't need rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are there to keep the underprivileged in their place, and to deny them space. (Masculinity (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't know how productive this discussion can be. You seem to think you are on the short end of a homosexual conspiracy, a gay cabal, as it seems to be. As a flaming homo, I can assure you that no such thing exists. I chalk this up to a very significant but complex cultural difference compounded by disparate views on what is acceptable in society and gender that we cannot seem to resolve. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there are cultural elements involved here, this is basically not an issue of cultural difference. The cultural difference only makes the invalidity of the concept of 'homosexuality' starker in non-Western societies, and we are better able to explain the absurdity of it, since we understand the concept of third sex.

However, the basic issue -- that of the concept of homosexuality being an invalid one, is universal. Feminine gendered males -- the irony is, the extreme feminine gendered (transgendered) male does not like the homosexual identity, because it classifies 'her' as a 'man', which 'she' is not... its only the 'meterosexual' males who like men who are comfortable with and aggressively defend the 'gay' identity. And these meterosexual males have been extremely empowered by the heterosexual society, which wants to see sexual desire between men to be seen as a 'feminine' trait.

It is the same in India. The small but emerging westernised Gay community in India, which is terribly empowered by the financial, moral and technological (e.g. media) support of the West are enforcing the concept of gay here. The only thing is that while in the West, the voice of men has totally been suppressed on these issues, in India, men still have a voice.

Gays will never understand how important social manhood is for them -- its a matter of life and death, eventhough this extreme situation is socially created. Men instinctively feel the 'third sex' nature of the gay identity, even if it is not acknowledged. And that is why they would prefer death than accept the gay identity. If you force it on them, they'd rather disown their sexual need for men and take on the 'heterosexual' identity.

But since the Gays have been so empowered by the heterosexual society, It is all too convenient for them to say that it is the men's fault if they can't accept the identity... they don't want to even consider that there could be something wrong with the concept of homosexual/ gay/ Queer/ MSM or whatever else you may prefer to call it. They are not willing to consider that the difference in relating with these identities is because of the basic difference of gender between them and masculine gendered males.

So basically, its all a matter of political/ social power. The gays are actually a minority, if compared with 'straight' men (not straight-acting men; straight is used here in the sense of msculine gendered, not heterosexual) who like men. However, they are disempowered in this matter. Therefore, if we have to have our point of view heard, we will have to defeat you politically/ socially first.

There should not be any scope for a 'cultural' dispute here at Wikipedia for two reasons:

- First is that we were specifically talking about non-Western societies and not non-Western societies, so there is no question of we interpreting things for you. It was a question of we interpreting things for us. the only dispute is that you want to interpret things for us, forcibly.

- On Wikipedia, our individual or collective views should not count. I had given innumerable published references to support that small line that we were adding in the gay article. There is no scope for a dispute here. This is sheer display of mob power, hooliganism.

And I'm not saying this just like that. I have had serious discussions on this topic on several Western forums. On this forum I mostly restrict myself to things that can be supported with published references, but on others I raised several important questions. In turn, I have been summarily banned from most of these sites, even though I was polite and did not break any rules -- because the gays know I'm speaking the truth and they don't have an answer for my questions -- and they're extremely threatened by what I say. (59.178.122.127 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

In fact, what the LGBT community has done here is, discredited the entire Wikipedia and its credibility. (59.178.122.127 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

It has nothing to do with the LGBT community, and your ravings do discredit only to yourself. Stop wasting our time. Paul B (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Queer Theology article having trouble

The Talk:Queer theology page has had some controversy this week, if anyone wants to help out Check out the section titled "What??" Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I Gay or Straight

I'm 18 years old and FEMALE, I do realize you don't finish growing mentally and physically until after 18 but the thing is, I've been questioning my sexuality. I will admit, I've dated men and women. This is what worries me though, the only person I felt like I'd give the world to was a girl and then she 'threw my heart' to the ground and stomped on it... Alright, yeah that's drama, whatever, anyways. I've dated guys but it just wasn't the same after her honestly. I've never had sex, ever, because I could never answer that question. Now I'm in a cluster, I'm dating a girl online, dating this guy in real life, and another guy online... Thing is, the guy in real life, he's really sweat and everything and I fear that I just can't give him everything. That's what bothers me the most. Everytime I date a guy I feel caged, but the 2 girls I've dated I don't feel caged, in fact I feel like I could give them the whole world... Another thing, I've dated more guys then girls... I think I might be gay, but with the family I've been raised in, I'm unsure if I am. My family is Anglican (A.K.A. a form of Christianity) I do want children, that's what also makes me confused... Am I gay? Or am I straight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.118.125 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to figure things out, which is fine. You may be bisexual. In any case, we can't answer that question for you here. You need to find a discussion forum, whereas these pages are only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Aleta ^Sing 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of this forum. Ask these women anything. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

everybody is a bit bi-sexual - even the most hardened straight or gay people. Its best to forget about labels and spend the time you have with people who make you happy. you sound like you're dating for he sake of dating. Just relax - make friends and if you want to sleep with someone it will happen. I'm sure over time you work out 'who' you are. The 'what' is so much less important. Orangebag (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gay an old Greek belief

I think that somewhere in this article we should have something about men being alowed to love men an old Greek belief.In those times the Greeks didn't mind man on man relationships.They even honored them.Someone should make the section.I'd do it but I'm don't think I'm experiebced enough, and I don't want to get yelled at by anybody on here for making a good article bad. Mr. Green^chat 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to this artice, but rather to homosexuality, which already covers the issue. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, o/k then.I just wanted to make sure it got mentioned somewhere. Mr. Green^chat 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

primary meaning

I object to the presentation of the original meaning "cheerful, happy" as obsolete. I am aware that the word is widely used in the sense of either "homosexual" or "lame, crappy" in colloquial language, but that doesn't mean the original meaning has been purged from the English vocabulary taken as a whole. In a higher, literary register, gay still very much retains its original meaning. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC) In response to the request, may I just point out, since nobody seems to have done so, that in ancient Greece it was normal for men to be bisexual? Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that the concepts of sexuality in the ancient times, in what is today known as the West were the same as those in the non-Western societies today, then I totally agree, and that should be noted as well.(Masculinity (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

I find it odd that when I read this article, I read a very one-sided account of what "gay" means. And here there is an opportunity to fix that. And I realize that for some guy sitting at a computer in the west, it may not matter to them that this article is in their point of view- but that's not right! Open your eyes to your own hypocrisy and stop blaming masculinity for going to bat for an injustice that he lives with. And that anyone who travels can plainly see. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What "gay" means is how the word is used. I don't think anyone here has disputed that sexual mores have changed over history and differ between cultures. But we can't explore all the differences of sexual norms throughout history and around the world in this article, which is about the word gay and the concepts specifically attached to that word. As for Masculinity, I'm not sure how he somehow "lives with" an "injustice". Do members of the Wikipedia LGBT project control life in Delhi? One of the problems is that he seems much less interested in creating an NPOV discussion of sexuality relevant to distinct articles than to promote a set of dogmas. We could have resolved this in no time at all with a little good faith, flexibility and sticking to the essential point. Paul B (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, then lets talk that. The only issue I see as relevant to this article is about how the word itself and the concept is used and understood differently in different cultures. I agree that there was a lot of banter about things outside of the issue. So to return to the point, what problem is there with this addition replacing the current sentence in the introductory paragraph:

"The term gay is somewhat relative to culture. For instance, it may not be used or understood the same way in Western and non-Western cultures, since some Non-western concepts of male sexuality differ from those prevalent in the West. In such cultures, gay might refer only to feminine gendered males, while masculine gendered males who like men are not seen as 'different' from the mainstream male community."

You wrote up above that it was "too sweeping", which I don't understand. And you don't like the "masculine gendered males who like men" part. The problem is that, this is an accurate wording to describe how the word is used in several non-western cultures. Can you think of better wording to explain it? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too sweeping because it makes generalised claims about "cultures" and about the attitudes of people in general within them, without acknowleging that multiple views and attitudes exist within cultures and between them. I also think that the phrase "feminine gendered male", although very "PC", is likely to be very confusing to the general reader. In some academic contexts the term "gender" is used to mean social models of maleness and femaleness as opposed to biological differences, but in common English no such distinction exists. I'm sure many readers will not understand what a "feminine gendered male" means, and may consider it to mean "a man who is a woman", which is nonsense. I'd prefer "effeminate" (or just "feminine"), since that is clearer. Some people might object that the former is a derogatory term, but any term, including "gay", can be derogatory if you don't like the thing it refers to. I have seen no evidence that "masculine gendered males who like men" is accurate. The same problem applies to "masculine gendered" as to "femine gendered", and the evidence presented here does not generally relate to the use of the word gay, except perhaps in English speaking groups within India, and even that is very unclear. "Like men" means nothing. If "have sex with men" is meant, then that's what it should say. I'd prefer something quite different, which makes no specific claims about models in the "non-West" in general, because as soon as you do so, you open yourself to the criticism that it's not true of culture-X, culture-Y or culture-Z. That's why I added "Outside of Western culture the concept of "gay" identity is less clearly defined and may clash with local models of sexuality." More detail then is then present in the section on the topic. However it could be added that in some instances the term is used as a synonym for "effeminate" without reference to the concept of sexual orientation, though even that isn't by any means unique to non-western cultures. As User:Taeda says above "Why does the non-Western problem with the concept need a second paragraph, as if its challenges are completely separate from experiences in the West?" Paul B (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you don't like that it's too sweeping but you acknowledge like Taeda, that this is more than a non-western issue, the challenges are also present in the west. That's what I don't understand. It is a bit sweeping, but the reality is a bit sweeping too. The only part that I see as valuable is the point that sometimes, particularly in some other cultures, only effeminate males identify with and are identified by the term gay within their culture. And that a person who sleeps with someone of the same sex is not considered a part of this term within that culture. Would this work?

Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West. In some cultures, the term identifies only effeminate males while a person who engages in sex with another person of their same gender isn't necessarily identified as gay. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this debate for a while without getting involved, but I'd like to throw some support to the suggestion made above. DEZnCHRIS's proposed sentence seems to clearly and fairly inform readers about the issue without giving it undue weight or going into unneccessary digressions. Doesn't this seem like a very reasonable compromise that everyone could live with? Doc Tropics 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"So, you don't like that it's too sweeping but you acknowledge like Taeda, that this is more than a non-western issue, the challenges are also present in the west. That's what I don't understand. It is a bit sweeping, but the reality is a bit sweeping too." No, reality is complex. Statements made about reality may be sweeping. If I say 'the French are cleverer than the Italians' that is 'sweeping'. Pointing out that there are also clever Italians does not make it 'more sweeping', it makes the facts more complex, and problematises the sweeping statement. The fact that the last sentence is also sometimes true within western societies (famously in prisons) is a complication, but for the sake of peace let's go with your suggestion. Paul B (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, complex. Did you just agree to the version up above? Do we get some more feedback before it gets changed or do I change it now? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me as well. Aleta ^Sing 04:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the proposed language? Fireplace (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the above version given by DENzChris to be too watered down. It doesn't bring out the immense clash that exists and has been documented by several important sources. While the western version has been explained in detail, there is just a small mention of this clash between cultures, about which there should not be any dispute after going through so many sources. To be frank, it will not make much difference whether this addition is put or not put. I think, a better thing to do would be to include some of the quotes directly from some of these sources. (Masculinity (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

The way I'm reading this, neither party is happy with the compromise suggested, but both can live with it. The proposed addition hasn't specifically been sourced yet, but Masculinity has provided several refs that support the gestalt. Doc Tropics 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can live with it, if a link is given to the page "non-Western concepts of Male sexuality" in this text itself. Then I don't have to talk about it in detail on this page itself. In this light, I propose the following amendment to what is suggested by DenZChris: Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West, due to variances with some non-Western concepts of male sexuality. In many traditional non-Western cultures, the term 'gay' signifies only effeminate males while a non-effeminate male who engages in sex with another man is considered part of the mainstream male community.(Masculinity (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Any edit with a link to that article will NOT be consensus. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, I respectfully disagree with you. Eeryone is trying to compromise here. We have the other article; it is reasonable (and, in fact, expected) to make links to it from relevant articles. I understand that you have concerns about that article. We should deal with those there. Aleta ^Sing 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Aleta. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, I entirely understand your concerns, however Aleta is completely correct, in that we are expected to provide links between related articles. The quality and even the existence of said article is something to be addressed on its own talkpage, but as long as it exists, it should be linked. Doc Tropics 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is the issue here. Is the issue here that there is still doubt whether there is actually a clash between cultures, or is it that this clash would not be allowed to be reported here because a powerful section does not like the fact that there is a clash? Isn't there something like giving space to the minority in a democratic setup. The entire gay article talks about things from a Western point of view. So why not give the less privileged some space at least to voice an opposition. Why is the powerful so hell bent on not giving even a small space to the minority, when all Wikipedia requirements have been comlied with. This is against the spirit of democracy, which is one of the positive things what the West has taught us.(Masculinity (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

This is also against the spirit of Globalisation, which entails that both the West and the East learn from each other while not thrusting themselves on each other. Surely, the Western concepts are not so delicate that they will collapse if they are questioned in the East. I'm sure the Western concepts are stronger than that. Suppressing the voice of opposition so that one enjoys absolute power is a typical "Oppressor" mentality. Gays are supposed to be "oppressed" not "oppresors".(Masculinity (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Masculinity, please keep in mind that WP is not a democracy, nor is globalisation one of our five pillars. While many of the points you've raised here and elsewhere certainly warrant consideration, any assertions that there is some kind of oppressive gay conspiracy will need to be backed up by extremely solid sources or they will not likely be taken seriously. Doc Tropics 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were correct, but look at what we are doing here. despite providing several references text sought to be included here, we are unable to make the changes because, just because some people don't want it, and they have given no valid Wikipedia reason for doing so. (Masculinity (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Is there a reliable source for the proposed text that clearly backs up the statement? I see lots of quotes above, but the discussion is long and confusing. Fireplace (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the statement, especially the phrase "In many traditional non-Western cultures, the term 'gay' signifies only effeminate males", since so far the only piece of evidence I've seen is about the term gay relates to (presumably) English speaking students in India. The idea that term 'gay' is used in "traditional non-western cultures" at all is highly dubious. As I say, I prefer the shorter sentence, and think that the complexities should be dealt with by referring to specific cultures rather than making sweeping assertions. But frankly, I'm just sick of this. Paul B (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true in several parts of Africa, in Latin America and in Japan, too. There are many documented references for this peppered over the internet, but no one person has digested it into a single source. Each one would require a separate reference. That seems kind of tacky to have 5 references at the end.

There was a lot of work done in these non-western countries because anthropologists were trying to show that there were gays that existed (to refute the claim that whites created "being gay"). The reason anthropologists had trouble and the reason that certain groups were able to claim that only the whites had gays was because sexuality was more fluid in other cultures, they never separated people out according to whom they slept with, unless you were an effeminate male. And these cultures all have a word for that that is translated gay. And now "gay" is used to mean effeminate males in many of these cultures. The slightest google search confirms this but it's spread out among many sources from many cultures. That's why using Masculinity's page makes sense because it's distilled into one source.

Also, I don't mind Masculinity's wording but the west vs. nonwest wording is redundant and would get edited out over time by every passing Wikipedia editor. It's best to make a streamlined statement now than opening it up to getting messed with every other day. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's true in several parts of Africa, in Latin America and in Japan, too." 'It' being the use of the word gay? If that's so provide the references. We don't need to add them in the lede, per MoS, but we can add them in the relevant section. If you have these references, bring them together here, don't leave them scattered. We can then expand the cultural relativity section with proper sources about the specific topic of this article. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While practices of homosexuality and cultural attitudes towards people who have sexual relationships with the same sex certainly differ from one culture (or one person) to another, the article in question is about the English word "Gay". I understand that there are quite a few languages in India (like, 300, or some such incomprehensible number to an American who struggles with Spanish). In countries where English is not the primary language, these nonWestern countries, how often is "Gay" in English used? If it's used, is it a cognate, or a mistranslation? How are we to know the context it is being used? Clearly there are articles regarding the concepts of homosexuality and lesbian, so it has occurred to me that this discussion may not be relevant unless we know beyond a shadow of a doubt how people in other countries specifically use the English term "Gay". --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Moni, how competent are editors here to do a research on their own on how the term is used in non-Western cultures. We have to go by the references. You can't insist on references where it suits you, and then totally ignore them and try to judge things on your own understanding when it doesn't.

(2) There may be 1000 of languages in Indian and millions in other parts of the non-West. But what is common across cultures is the concept of a third gender, which has come to characterise an effeminate male who indulges in receptive anal sex -- who is distinguised from the mainstream, masculine gendered male population, that in the west consists of straight identified men.

Therefore, if the word 'gay' is thrusted on these cultures (let's say in the name of AIDS prevention), then they will most naturally use it to refer to the concept of third gender that is so entrenched in their cultures. And, it will be the same across the millions of languages. (Masculinity (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Moni, we did debate earlier about the English word gay... I understand what you're saying but in all fairness... English is known and spoken.. and whatever information could be added to this English language article about other cultures would be the most beneficial to English speaking westerners who export their culture unwittingly through missionary service/ gay tourism/ humanitarian work without realizing that they may be trying to fix something that isn't broken. They are making outsiders of people that are currently integrated into the mainstream. That last statement I just made, as far as I can tell, can't be stated in the article, as it would clearly be Original Research, based on real documented research and basic knowledge if you've traveled, but not able to be sourced. But the rest of it is out there in sources.

Here is a document outlining what anthropological studies have dug up in the way of LGBT in a sweeping array of non-western cultures. [www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/queerant.html] It's long and it's hard not to pull out a dozen applicable quotes here and there that summed up would make my argument- but for the sake of brevity I'll just pull this one out because, as I see it, it explains why this should be included in this article. It's "cautionary" because of the influence that the west has abroad through media and direct contact. And isn't it kind of a shame any time you see a local cultural attribute being eroded by the big powerful outsiders?

Processes of globalization have touched all of them. This is very clear in the case of gay culture, though less so for lesbian culture (see however Wieringa, 1989). Gay bar life is becoming everywhere quite similar, and also the gay habitus. A gay man from Asia can easily recognize many signs and habits of gay men in New York, Amsterdam or Mykonos. A global gay culture emanating from the Western world, especially from the United States, has come into existence through networks of gay men, sex tourism, exiles, media representations and so forth. This globalization of gay culture deeply influences gay experiences everywhere, but the way it is experienced and practiced will remain mediated by local and idiosyncratic factors. On the other hand, local same-sex cultures that work on different models of desire, behaviour and courtship, continue to exist. But in many places, such worlds have been exterminated as happened with Melanesian initiations (Herdt, 1985) or the Uzbek tradition of bacabozlik (boygame) under Russian and Soviet rule (Baldauf, 1988). Discussions on global versus local cultures as they have been developing recently are especially important for gay and lesbian studies.

The brief mention in this Wikipedia article only says that in the smaller local non-western cultures, in a sweeping variety of them, they have a different understanding of the gay concept. Exactly what this anthropological source says DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"globalization of gay culture deeply influences gay experiences everywhere, but the way it is experienced and practiced will remain mediated by local and idiosyncratic factors." This is exactly what the sentence that I proposed stated. It makes no sweeping claims about what 'the West' and the 'non-West' believe, or that every 'non-western(ised)' culture is identical. In contrast, it says that "local and idiosyncratic factors" mediate the claim that there is a clear distinction between 'gay' and 'straight' identity. That seems to me to be the best was to speak of the issue, anmd it's exactly what was proposed by the sentence "Outside of Western culture the concept of 'gay' identity is less clearly defined and may clash with local models of sexuality." Paul B (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your consistency ideas, but perhaps this article is not the appropriate place to address the use of the word "Gay" in India or any other country where the word is so rarely used it has no meaning to the majority of people. I'm not saying you shouldn't address issues of gender, masculinity and femininity in men or women in nonwestern cultures, but such a discussion should probably go in the articles of homosexuality, gender, masculine, feminine, and the article you created.

This article discusses the term "Gay", how it evolved to mean homosexual, and how the term is used. If it is not used by people who speak other languages, how can information about other cultures where the word isn't used be included? The article for Homosexuality discusses same-sex relationships and the roles of men and women within same-sex relationships, and I think that would be more appropriate than this article for your ideas. --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But this IS about how the term is used. The proposed addition states that we are talking about "the concept of gay identity" and the source I gave above specifically speaks to research done in the native american, Indonesian, Spanish-speaking American, and Indian cultures that have a word for the effeminate male but not for the guy he sleeps with (or is married to). Our word GAY is being exported to them to mean what we think it means but they are understanding it to mean what they think it means. So this addition hold water. Doesn't it?

Outside of Western influence the concept of gay identity is less clearly defined and may clash with models of sexuality prevalent in the West. In some cultures, the term identifies only effeminate males while a person who engages in sex with another person of their same gender isn't necessarily identified as gay.DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the "Queering Anthropology" article you quoted above. It has information that would be relevant for the homosexuality article. But, it doesn't seem to specifically address non-western uses of the term gay, which is what this article is about. I'm sure there is a reliable source talking about that. Fireplace (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a need to acknowledge that a lot of "reliable sources" have already been given on the topic, so please don't sound as if it hasn't. And, how does it matter whether the article specifically addresses the topic in question or deals with it along with a larger concern. The important thing to note should be that it has raised the issue or thrown some light on it, and it comes from an important source. Of course, like you said, there are other references quoted which specifically deal with the topic at hand.(Masculinity (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

• If the thought is that the debate is valid but not appropriate for this article, what if we used a disambiguation tag at the top of the article to direct interested readers to the Homosexuality and to the Non-Western Masculinity pages? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds interesting. As long as it is not vague and someone who could benefit from the information (that the word 'gay' although being thrusted upon him through media and other western supported agencies in his own culture has been recognised as having a different meaning in the non-West) is not deprived of the information just because the wordings were not clear enough to make him want to click the link. (Masculinity (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

A lot of reliable sources have been given. The problem is that they don't necessarily say what you want to say. They draw attention to complexities of cultural difference, certainly not that the term gay has a different meaning, or that there is a universal concept of a 'third sex'. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you can put something like, this article discusses the use of the word 'gay' in Western societies. For non-Western concepts of male gender and sexuality (or masculinity) see this (link). (Masculinity (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Would the same treatment be warranted for a disambiguation for lesbian or bisexual? I don't think so. There's an article for "Lesbian" and the cultural implications of relationships between women, just as there is an article for pederasty as it applies to traditional male relationships. They are linked in the article where appropriate. To disambiguate all considerations of homosexuality from this article would take up too much space. I maintain Nonwestern Concepts of Masculinity should be linked in "See also". It does seem we're rather back to square one, but what other way is there to treat this issue? --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And why do you think the same treatment should not be given to Lesbian or homosexual or "Heterosexual" or any other article if it can be shown that there exists a difference in the use of these terms in certain quarters? Do you have a valid reason for that? Of course you do realise (don't you) that this is being considered only because some people here do not want to discuss this difference in detail on this page, nor do they want to give a link with a short description, despite the fact that there is a general consensus now that there is a difference between the use of the term and concept of 'gay' between the West and non-West. (Masculinity (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

The point of the article I gave was to show the anthropological research. The reason that the very mild requested addition should be made to this article is because "gay" is the term people use and would search and is the term and the concept that is understood differently in different cultures. When a scientists writes, he writes homosexual, when a person speaks they say gay. That resource very much applies to this article. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that a link to this debate should also be given in the article, perhaps in the see also section.(Masculinity (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I have another compromise. We don't talk much in this article but just put a small link in the introduction. Something like:

Some sources claim that the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures, due to differences between the Western and non-Western concepts of male gender and sexuality.(Masculinity (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

"Some sources claim that the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures", but none of your genuinely good sources say that. They say - quite reasonably - that the concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures (not the "non-West" as a whole) and that attempts to create a 'gay consciousness' in such cultures can lead to problems and confusion of identity. This is a fair point to make and many good sources make it. It's why that aspect of the issue has been included here in its own section. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "genuinely good sources" have spoken in terms of West and the specific non-Western cultures, like India, China, Arab, etc. But, please note that when they all specifically use the term "West", that means that they consider the entire 'gay' thing to be primarily "Western", which means that it is not in the non-West.

And it is not that none of these "reliable sources" (if you mean those by universities, etc.) have used the term West vs non-West. Here's at least one such source (this is available on the net):

The Dictionary of Anthropology; By Thomas Barfield; Published 1997, Blackwell Publishing; Ethnology

"Influenced in part by the works of Michel Foucault, recent theorists of culture and sexuality have begun to question the applicability of Western notions of homosexuality and heterosexuality to non-Western cultures."

Now, in the light of all these references, the onus is now on the objecting side to find out if any source does claim that there has been something like the 'gay' identity prevalent in any part of non-West. If you can find even one -- and if there is any doubt about it, there must be at least one such reference in all of the world -- then I'd change/ qualify the word "non-West", and that is a promise.

But in all of this, don't forget that the above wording is yet another compromise on our side. While the pro changes side has made several comprises, its your turn to give up some ground.(Masculinity (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Another "genuine source": Massad, Joseph Andoni 1963-

Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World Public Culture - Volume 14, Number 2, Spring 2002, pp. 361-385; Duke University Press http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.2massad.html

"Following in the footsteps of the white Western women's movement, which had sought to universalize its issues through imposing its own colonial feminism on the women's movements in the non-Western world -- a situation that led to major schisms from the outset -- the gay movement has adopted a similar missionary role" (Masculinity (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Do you even read what people say before repeating your mantras? You certainly give the impression that you do not. I'm sure that's why many other editors have simply given up trying to talk to you. You write "Now, in the light of all these references, the onus is now on the objecting side to find out if any source does claim that there has been something like the 'gay' identity prevalent in any part of non-West" And how is that supposed to be a 'reply' to my statements, which fully accepted that the "concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures" but which resisted making generalizations about the 'non-West' in total. None of the passages you quote make any such generalisations, and none of them say that "the term and concept of 'gay' is understood differently in non-Western cultures". In fact they completely contradict that assertion. One simply speaks of a questioning of Western models, and the other states that a specific model ("the gay movement") has adopted a missionary role, a point that is already made in the current article by the quotation from Shivananda Khan. I've added the Massad quote, but now it may be unbalanced by stressing to much one POV. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but, doesn't your statement above "They say - quite reasonably - that the concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures (not the "non-West" as a whole)" mean that you are questioning my inclusion of the word "non-West".

Isn't this the issue. The use of the word non-West, for which you claim there are no sources? And doesn't the sources I just provided specifically claim that (what you call generalisation) there is no concept of 'homosexual' or 'gay' identity in the non-West?

I'm afraid, if there is generalisation at all, it is by the specific reference which is as genuine as you can get.(Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

<<<And how is that supposed to be a 'reply' to my statements, which fully accepted that the "concept of gay identity does not exist in many cultures" but which resisted making generalizations about the 'non-West' in total>>>

How are you fully accepting if you oppose the word Non-West, and water down the fact by using the words "many cultures". There is a clear distinction between West and non-West used by all sources, some as West vs specific non-Western countries, and at least two references talk about West vs Non-West as a whole.(Masculinity (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't "oppose the word non-West" I oppose the way you use the word and the general claims you make for 'it' as a totality. I never claimed that there were no uses of the term, but that there were no uses that supported the way you deploy it. I have given my reasons. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K., let me review the points you're making. That the word 'gay' is not applicable to men who have sex with men in non-Western cultures per se, I think there is no dispute on that, am I right?

Now you're saying that there is not evidence from all of the non-West that gay is used differently than in the West. There are two points I'd like to make for this:

(1) That the word 'gay' in non-Western cultures is used mainly by Westernised, middle class effeminate males who like men, for whom the indigenous identities are too 'unsophisticated', since they are English educated, elitist -- is common knowledge across the non-West, as attested by editors participating in this discussion, who have been to or lived in the non-West.

(2) Now, we may have references only from a few places, including India, thailand, etc., though indirect references are given in several places. However, since this is such a widespread universal situation in the non-West, if this is not allowed to be added, then in all fairness, the entire article on 'gay' should be redone and be based only on what can be directly validated through references. Are you ready for that?(Masculinity (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

"That the word 'gay' is not applicable to men who have sex with men in non-Western cultures per se, I think there is no dispute on that, am I right?" Of course there is. It precisely the point that it is not appropriate to talk about "non-Western cultures" in that way. The word gay may be applicable or not, depending on how it is used and in what context.

"That the word 'gay' in non-Western cultures is used mainly by Westernised, middle class effeminate males who like men". Again this is pointlessly sweeping, and no evidence has been provided that it's true, apart from in one one specific context, and that doesn't even differ much from common Western use of the word gay by adolescents to mean "girlish".

"Now, we may have references only from a few places, including India, thailand, etc., though indirect references are given in several places." I see no references from Thailand, just a survey of some Indians, which is from the disputed and unreferenced "Masculinity for Boys" document. It's very typical of this document, in that it is very unclear what the actual context is and what the sources are. The passage you quoted refered to men being interviewed by an unnamed "NGO", who "described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’." Now what "two masculine men" are being referred to here? Are these also characters on Indian TV (which I rather doubt)? I see no evidence that like is being compared with like. I've no reason to doubt that a similar survey of a TV character in the West might produce similar results, if a character was very effeminate. Since we also have no information about the context, it's also very difficult to judge. Are openly homosexual men depicted on Indian TV? I don't know. You tell me. If not, the viewers may well interpret the character as a coded "homo", even if he is not explictly portrayed as such - that was the case in western European countries before homosexual men were portrayed as such openly. So much detailed knowledge of context is required that the generalisations dissolve into meaninglessness. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To argue with a gay about this issue is like banging your head against the wall.(Masculinity (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

One problem not mentioned yet is the association of the term "homosexual" with medicojurdical abjection. It was originally used to discuss perversity and abnormality in medical journal is the 19th century. Thus, even this term is not universal as is claimed above. "Homosexual" emerged out of a heterosexist climate. I suggest that "gay" be used in its place. At least this term isn't bound up in a very long, very offensive, and very controversial history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.180.136 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not true at all. For masculine gendered males (men in non-western world and straight men in the west) have always had a problem with the very concept of 'gay'. You have to understand that its the concept of gay/ homosexuality that is problematic, no matter what you call it. Even if you look at the origin of the word 'gay' itself (which of course this article on gay manipulated by the powerful lobby here which only wants to have its own way irrespective of what the rules say), gay was originally used for "whores" and "sexually loose woman" which was later used for queer, feminine, frivolous males of the third gender (which they had officially called "homosexual"). And that is what is the problem with gay. the same as with 'homosexual'. But those belonging to the third gender will never understand how these concepts harm men and the cause of the love between men. because this gives members of the third sex power, they will never want things to change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)

Reset indent. Are we back on this again? That was a pleasant break...I still maintain you're trying to work something out through Wikipedia, Masculinity. Something that appears to be very complex for your culture. Your association of the word "Gay" with less masculine men is not as prevalent in the general usage of the term. Here, gay is gay - two people of the same sex who are romantically and/or sexually attracted to each other. Your term "Third Sex" or "Third Gender" was used commonly in the US about 50 years ago, and is hardly ever used today, except when referring to a time when homosexuality was not discussed. Regardless, you said it yourself: the concept of homosexuality is problematic. That is where your argument lies. Not with the Gay article. Gay is a word in English that has gone through changes in its use. To apply Indian or other Asian concepts to a word that has had a history only in English-speaking countries is a fallacy. Nothing harms men and the love between men but the lack of confidence those men have in its validity. Adding irrelevant information to this article cannot change that. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to press for any changes to any of the Wikipedia's article here. I and others who canvassed for it hard and gathered several valid references are convinced that the gay lobby is pretty strong in the West, and it will not allow the truth to be acknowledged on such platforms. So, basically, Wikipedia, inspite of all its claims to be based upon strict policies, eventually has no mechanism against prejudices and unfair practices by politically and socially strong groups, even when they manipulate, reinvent and suppress information.

I made a post here, only as a reply to the above poster who claimed that the word 'gay' is less problematic. If the concept of homosexuality is problematic then any synonyms for it would be equally problematic. And, its not that your lobby has allowed changes to be made in the article on homosexuality. So this line of argument of yours doesn't hold water too. But then, when you're the powerful majority (at least you seem to be the majority since men don't have a voice in this matter), who cares about rules and fairness.

I can gather enough evidence from the Western society itself that although the word 'gay' is not officially acknowledged as being used for queer/ feminine gendered males, in practise it remains the same as it was originally -- the third gender. Even Western institution of science works on that line. There are any number of 'scientific researches' that 'prove' that 'gay' men have brains similar to those of women, rather than men. That the rate of responsiveness of their eyelids is the same as that of women, and not of 'straight' (read masculine gendered) men. Gay men are mostly portrayed in popular media as queers/ effeminate males. The Gay community itself calls itself 'queer', and aligns with the transgendered.

It's again a lie that the word 'gay' applies only to western societies. It's true that it doesn't till now, but its equally true that the forces of westernisation/ heterosexualisation which are very powerful are bent on enforcing the gay identity on Indian men through the control of powerful institution of Media. And that is why it is important to give the non-Western perspective to it. Because, eventhough its a peculiarly western concept it is being thrust upon us.

But who am I arguing with. The powerful forces who are forcing their concepts on us. Why would they listen to us? The powerful doesn't need rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are there to keep the underprivileged in their place, and to deny them space. (Masculinity (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't know how productive this discussion can be. You seem to think you are on the short end of a homosexual conspiracy, a gay cabal, as it seems to be. As a flaming homo, I can assure you that no such thing exists. I chalk this up to a very significant but complex cultural difference compounded by disparate views on what is acceptable in society and gender that we cannot seem to resolve. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there are cultural elements involved here, this is basically not an issue of cultural difference. The cultural difference only makes the invalidity of the concept of 'homosexuality' starker in non-Western societies, and we are better able to explain the absurdity of it, since we understand the concept of third sex.

However, the basic issue -- that of the concept of homosexuality being an invalid one, is universal. Feminine gendered males -- the irony is, the extreme feminine gendered (transgendered) male does not like the homosexual identity, because it classifies 'her' as a 'man', which 'she' is not... its only the 'meterosexual' males who like men who are comfortable with and aggressively defend the 'gay' identity. And these meterosexual males have been extremely empowered by the heterosexual society, which wants to see sexual desire between men to be seen as a 'feminine' trait.

It is the same in India. The small but emerging westernised Gay community in India, which is terribly empowered by the financial, moral and technological (e.g. media) support of the West are enforcing the concept of gay here. The only thing is that while in the West, the voice of men has totally been suppressed on these issues, in India, men still have a voice.

Gays will never understand how important social manhood is for them -- its a matter of life and death, eventhough this extreme situation is socially created. Men instinctively feel the 'third sex' nature of the gay identity, even if it is not acknowledged. And that is why they would prefer death than accept the gay identity. If you force it on them, they'd rather disown their sexual need for men and take on the 'heterosexual' identity.

But since the Gays have been so empowered by the heterosexual society, It is all too convenient for them to say that it is the men's fault if they can't accept the identity... they don't want to even consider that there could be something wrong with the concept of homosexual/ gay/ Queer/ MSM or whatever else you may prefer to call it. They are not willing to consider that the difference in relating with these identities is because of the basic difference of gender between them and masculine gendered males.

So basically, its all a matter of political/ social power. The gays are actually a minority, if compared with 'straight' men (not straight-acting men; straight is used here in the sense of msculine gendered, not heterosexual) who like men. However, they are disempowered in this matter. Therefore, if we have to have our point of view heard, we will have to defeat you politically/ socially first.

There should not be any scope for a 'cultural' dispute here at Wikipedia for two reasons:

- First is that we were specifically talking about non-Western societies and not non-Western societies, so there is no question of we interpreting things for you. It was a question of we interpreting things for us. the only dispute is that you want to interpret things for us, forcibly.

- On Wikipedia, our individual or collective views should not count. I had given innumerable published references to support that small line that we were adding in the gay article. There is no scope for a dispute here. This is sheer display of mob power, hooliganism.

And I'm not saying this just like that. I have had serious discussions on this topic on several Western forums. On this forum I mostly restrict myself to things that can be supported with published references, but on others I raised several important questions. In turn, I have been summarily banned from most of these sites, even though I was polite and did not break any rules -- because the gays know I'm speaking the truth and they don't have an answer for my questions -- and they're extremely threatened by what I say. (59.178.122.127 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

In fact, what the LGBT community has done here is, discredited the entire Wikipedia and its credibility. (59.178.122.127 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

It has nothing to do with the LGBT community, and your ravings do discredit only to yourself. Stop wasting our time. Paul B (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Queer Theology article having trouble

The Talk:Queer theology page has had some controversy this week, if anyone wants to help out Check out the section titled "What??" Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I Gay or Straight

I'm 18 years old and FEMALE, I do realize you don't finish growing mentally and physically until after 18 but the thing is, I've been questioning my sexuality. I will admit, I've dated men and women. This is what worries me though, the only person I felt like I'd give the world to was a girl and then she 'threw my heart' to the ground and stomped on it... Alright, yeah that's drama, whatever, anyways. I've dated guys but it just wasn't the same after her honestly. I've never had sex, ever, because I could never answer that question. Now I'm in a cluster, I'm dating a girl online, dating this guy in real life, and another guy online... Thing is, the guy in real life, he's really sweat and everything and I fear that I just can't give him everything. That's what bothers me the most. Everytime I date a guy I feel caged, but the 2 girls I've dated I don't feel caged, in fact I feel like I could give them the whole world... Another thing, I've dated more guys then girls... I think I might be gay, but with the family I've been raised in, I'm unsure if I am. My family is Anglican (A.K.A. a form of Christianity) I do want children, that's what also makes me confused... Am I gay? Or am I straight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.118.125 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to figure things out, which is fine. You may be bisexual. In any case, we can't answer that question for you here. You need to find a discussion forum, whereas these pages are only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Aleta ^Sing 21:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of this forum. Ask these women anything. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

everybody is a bit bi-sexual - even the most hardened straight or gay people. Its best to forget about labels and spend the time you have with people who make you happy. you sound like you're dating for he sake of dating. Just relax - make friends and if you want to sleep with someone it will happen. I'm sure over time you work out 'who' you are. The 'what' is so much less important. Orangebag (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gay an old Greek belief

I think that somewhere in this article we should have something about men being alowed to love men an old Greek belief.In those times the Greeks didn't mind man on man relationships.They even honored them.Someone should make the section.I'd do it but I'm don't think I'm experiebced enough, and I don't want to get yelled at by anybody on here for making a good article bad. Mr. Green^chat 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to this artice, but rather to homosexuality, which already covers the issue. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, o/k then.I just wanted to make sure it got mentioned somewhere. Mr. Green^chat 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

primary meaning

I object to the presentation of the original meaning "cheerful, happy" as obsolete. I am aware that the word is widely used in the sense of either "homosexual" or "lame, crappy" in colloquial language, but that doesn't mean the original meaning has been purged from the English vocabulary taken as a whole. In a higher, literary register, gay still very much retains its original meaning. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Archive

I'd like to archive the sections before s10 or s10.3 to an archive called Archive 4 (Masculinity). Any objections? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

None, go ahead. Mr. Green^chat 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Paul B (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you objecting or not? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh that was quick. No, I was agreeing, but I think the title would be misleading "non western concept of gay identity" or some such might be better. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)