Jump to content

Talk:Intersex and LGBTQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leekindj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intersex and LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intersex and LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex and homosexuality

[edit]

The article currently claims "Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same sex attraction in intersex people"- suggesting that higher prevalence of homosexuality (how much?) is seen the class of intersex people. This is a gross over-generalization. The citations are specifically about (NC) CAH and the article itself describes how the idea of prenatal androgen in exposure in humans and its effect on sexuality is not something that should be considered as established. Further, there are many misconceptions about intersex people not necessarily being either male or female (see Sax); homosexuality would have to be explained in cases of 'true' intersex individuals. The claims of the Australian survey suggest that 52% of people who identify as intersex are non heterosexual would have to be contrasted with the much much lower prevalence in the general population. Very little is clearly established here.Maneesh (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an excessive removal. You are not here to judge inclusion of sources according to particular ideological frameworks. Editing with reference to the actual sources would have been a better alternative, and reference to Sax is both irrelevant and WP:OR. Clinician views on the 'true' sexes of individuals with intersex conditions has gone through many historical and well documented shifts with an impact on what might be meant by female or male. For example the cited author, Heino Meyer-Bahlburg defines sex by reference to chromosomes. I have edited the material, and added a citation further down the page. Trankuility (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where your claims of ideology are coming from. You are incorrect on a great deal here reflecting common misconceptions about intersex. You are not familiar with the Sax paper I refer to, it is not WP:OR it is a published in a peer reviewed journal, has been cited 351 times by scholar and meets WP:SOURCES. There is no coherent consensus on the relationship between homosexuality and intersex (the latter being a very diverse class of conditions), the removal is correct. Using "genetic male" for AIS is standard terminology. Because the concept of sex does truly become difficult to categorize for conditions like AIS (why 'genetic male' is used for clarity instead of just 'male'), the idea of 'homo'-sexuality also becomes difficult to define for the same reasons. I am not aware of any sources that explores that issue in detail. The added references do not support the generalized claim that "Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same sex attraction in intersex people".If 'Meyer-Bahlburg also discussed sexual attraction by individuals with..., 5α-Reductase deficiency...stating that sexual attraction towards females in individuals with these conditions was facilitated by 'prenatal exposure to and utilization of androgens'" then how could that be relevant to homosexuality? 5α-Reductase deficiency affect *males*, if they are attracted to females then that is heterosexuality. I can't verify what Meyer-Bahlburg actually wrote behind the paywall to see where you made your mistake.
There is of course little need to do all this since the quote from Meyer-Bahlburg in the article says clearly 'It is too early to conclude that there is a pre- or perinatal hormonal contribution to the development of homosexuality'...so then why does the section start with the claim that ""Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same sex attraction in intersex people"" ?Maneesh (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Meyer-Bahlburg cites are quite old as well (1990); not a terrible amount has changed since then though. You can see a more recent review (2011) on the relationship between conditions that influence the prenatal endocrine environment (a subset, perhaps a very small one, of all intersex conditions) and sexual orientation, you can see the language is cautious and highlights many caveats in the interpretation of studies that it examines. Nowhere do you see strong claims about homosexuality enrichment in population with atypical prenatal endocrine exposure, precisely because sexual orientation is a complex trait with many factors. I think it would be fine to describe which numbers suggest that there *might* be a link between prenatal exposures and sexual orientation for *specific conditions*, but it the relevance to the entire class of intersex people doesn't line up with WP:PROPORTION .Maneesh (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong word used

[edit]

There is no "edit" icon for the top paragraph, which contains this text, "... with the acronym sometimes expanded to LGBTI".

LGBTI is NOT an acronym -- a pronounceable word like NATO -- but an intialism, which is not a word, like IBM. ~~

My understanding of that section, which can be changed if someone edits the whole page, is it is referring to the LGBTQ community, but specifically emphasizing those who are intersex. Perhaps it should be changed to LGBTQ, or even LGBT, but I'd to have some consensus on here before I make that change. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that Intersex and LGBT is a sufficiently well-developed topic to warrant separate discussion, even if there is overlap with Intersex. Klbrain (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I was wondering why there is an "intersex" page as well as a "intersex and LGBT" page. Is there a reason they are separate? Is there a way we could combine them? Amethystloucks (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding for why the Intersex and LGBT and Intersex pages are separate is that not all intersex people consider themselves part of the LGBTQ+ community, as it notes in the opening of this page: "They are substantially more likely to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) than endosex people." In fact, there was a debate back in 2007 about whether intersex should be added to the LGBT Wikiproject! (there's a lot of dated stuff there, but its still interesting to know what people were saying back then). The consensus then was to add them within the project scope and that has remained to this day. For other debates on the intersection of intersex and LGBTQ+ people, sometimes with language we would now see as dated, see here (in 2005), here (also mentioned in the "LGBT_sidebar" discussion too, but its not letting me link that here) (in 2007), here (also when there was debate as to whether asexuality be added under the LGBT WikiProject) (in 2007), here (in 2007), here (in 2007), here (in 2007), here (in 2007), here (in 2007), here (in 2008), here (in 2008), here (in 2008), here (in 2009), here (in 2009), here (in 2009), here (in 2009), here (in 2009), here (in 2011), here (in 2009), here (in 2014), here (in 2014), here (in 2014), here (in 2016), here (2016) [I think this was before this article existed], here (in 2016), here (in 2017), here (in 2017), here (in 2017), here (in 2017), here (in 2017), here (in 2017), here (in 2018) (mention of this article!), here (in 2017-2018), here (in 2018), here (in 2018), here (in 2018), here (in 2018), here (in 2019), here (in 2020) [I was involved in this mess], here (in 2020), here (in 2020), here (in 2021) (my post!), here (in 2021) (my post!), here (in 2021), here (in 2021), and here (in 2023). There's probably even more discussions, but this is MOST of them.
Also, there is STILL this on the LGBT Wikiproject: List of intersex-related redlinks. Additionally, the intersex page is pretty long already and I fear that a merger could cause this content to be lost in the process. In any case, I'll share this on relevant WikiProjects in hopes of getting some more thoughts here. I see value in this topic being separate from the main intersex page. This page was created in January 31, 2017 by @User:Trankuility, as a split from Intersex. In Trankuility's words, it utilized "some source material from Intersex." Also the Guidelines for the LGBT WikiProject says:

Intersex is a biological status related to physical sex characteristics, typically a medical fact, and requires reliable sourcing. Intersex people may be man, woman, non-binary, or agender (genderless), e.g. Herculine Barbin. They may perceive being intersex as related to their sex, or not, or as a medical condition, or not. Some intersex people are LGBT, while others are heterosexual, cisgender, or binary. Care has been taken to limit the interrelationships between LGBT pages and intersex pages because of these issues.

Your questions make sense, and there are relevant discussions on the Intersex talk page about why it makes sense to have this page here, here, here, here, here, and here, to name a few discussions. Historyday01 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all hail here 188.236.164.58 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The I in LGBTQIA is for intersex. Yeah some intersex people may not identify as LGBTQIA but again the I is for intersex. Intersex is inherently LGBTQIA. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Des Vallee (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we've been over this many times. There's an overlap between intersex and LGBT topics, but they're still exclusive. Not all intersex people consider themselves LGTBT (or LGBTI) - Alison talk 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's what my comment was saying, although I should have said *more* directly that I oppose this proposed merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article is about how intersexuality relates to other LGBT identities. It has a clear purpose and enough material to be its own article. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that not all intersex people identify as LGBT, which is why I think the correct page to keep is Intersex. That page has a section titled "LGBT and LGBTI" which I think is the proper place for this information - I believe the relevant parts of this article should be moved to that one. Turtletwo (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to strongly disagree. This current page should be its OWN topic. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Rob Kelk 23:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a separate topic about how intersex people intersect with the LGBT community. It is covered briefly in the Intersex article but it gets full coverage here. The only thing I would change is that the title here seems rather clunky and just sounds a bit "off". If anybody can think of a better name then that might be helpful. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose the merger for the same reasons others have cited, these are topics which have a defined area which overlaps, but neither of the circles which encompasses each of the topics is wholly inset within the other. 2603:8081:8700:6C00:303B:1A63:5584:CE65 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not every intersex person identifies as being a member of the LGBT community. Merging the two pages together is not only more than likely gonna be extremely controversial, but also may make the article longer than is necessary. There's a Main Article part in the article for a reason. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of all the above reasons. EXANXC (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex and LGBT → Intersex and LGBTQ – Following moves of WP:CONSUB. However, I noticed this case is a bit more specific, because it also deals with LGBTI. So if we move to LGBTQ, LGBTQI or LGBTIQ should also be notable, and they technically are. LGBTQI+, for example, is used by United Nations. LGBTQIA+ is also used worldwide, so I wouldn't oppose a different move in the acronym.

It should also be noted it's using Intersex and LGBT as nouns, so alternative suggestions are appreciated. Noun terms such as community, identity, acronym, or topics are possible examples. LIrala (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intersex_and_LGBTQ&oldid=1265858985"