Talk:LGBTQ rights in the United States

Claims in lead

The lead seems to make two un-evidenced claims, both of which look questionable on their face. First, the claim in the first line that the US is one of the most advanced countries on the world in respect of LGBT rights is supported by two references. The first is to a book where it is not at all clear how the reference justifies the statement. The second is to a table of most LGBT friendly countries where the US is listed at 26. That puts it just a little above the midpoint of the [list of full and flawed democracies]. Even if you include hybrid regimes the US comes in the second quartile. In other words, the 'most advanced' claim does not seem to be true. The second claim which doesn't look right is that "public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of same sex marriages". I don't want to break the rules on WP:OR, but there's plenty of sources available through Google which show that while same sex marriage is strongly supported by educated white people of the centre and left, the picture with most other groups is far less supportive. I will wait to see if there are any other comments before editing. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"where the US is listed at 26" That high, for a Christian fundamentalist regime? I was expecting much lower results. Anyway, please remove that statement.Dimadick (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Dimadick. I have gone ahead and made two edits. I made them separately so other editors can see them and revert individually if necessary. The second edit is a bold one as per WP:BRD, I think.

My first edit removed the first sentence reference to the US being amongst the most advanced countries in respect of LGBT rights (see my comments above). My second edit removed the last paragraph which referred to high levels of support for LGBT rights in the US. That was contradicted by content in the main body ('Public opinion on different LGBT rights') and also see my comments above. I also think that the article could be improved in a number of other ways. It seems very long and does not include much about recent reversals; I find the content and structure a bit odd in that latter respect. I will not make more changes until I see that the ones I've made already are not objected to. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

One of my edits has been reverted. I just thought I'd put this here to see if other editors agree with the revert. As described above, I removed the final paragraph of the lead because it seems obviously incorrect and is supported by poor references.

The two references used to justify "overwhelming support" for gay marriage in the US are first to Grinnel College, then a link simply to the search page of a General Society Survey which it is claimed contains (somewhere, it is not clear) a statement that there is "near universal" support for same sex marriage amongst adults age 18-34. These sources seem very much outliers. In the first case, a better source is Gallup, which puts present overall support for gay marriage at a little over 2-1. That is far from "overwhelming support", particularly given the resistance which still exists amongst many communities and groups. In the second case, the trends in this 2017 Pew survey are relevant (the figures can be reasonably assumed to be a little better today along the lines suggested in the diagrams) make it clear that there is not likely to yet be near universal support across society amongst adults aged to 34. Near universal is, in any case, a very strong claim and requires more than an unclear link to a single source.

It is important that this article not appear to be making overly optimistic claims about the advance of LGBT rights in the US. Things are certainly heading in the right direction, but claims of overwhelming and near universal support appear unhelpful and incorrect. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You are silly! 80% of Americans support LGBT. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. f that's not advanced... 2A01:5A8:306:6B93:C92F:A32:1304:99C2 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comment. I don't know why you think my comment is silly. My point is simply that the US is listed at the referece given in the article at no.26 in the world's most advanced LGBT countries; that's not a sufficient bases for a claim that America is "one of the most advanced" in respect of LGBT issues. I have also cited a reference that in the US support for LGBT equality runs at a bit better than 2-1; again, that's not "overwhelming". You haven't cited a single source. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Chuck, fa*ot, i really hate you! 2A01:5A8:307:BBFD:7569:5377:5B0E:6C18 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Why would you write such a homophobic thing? I think you might be feeling poorly. Maybe you should check with a doctor? Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the start of the introductory section to note that the US comes below most full democracies in the relevant index of the social acceptability of LGBTQIA+. I have also edited to include SCOTUS 2023 ruling permitting limited discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

TQI+ is bullshits that normal LGB people don't care about and is only to their harm 2A01:5A8:307:BBFD:35C4:7AF:96F6:DE (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The SCOTUS ruling is about gay people. You know that, right? Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Did the stuff about "not a forum" phase you 2603:6080:D841:50F4:8859:19D8:C939:6150 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

US place on international index of countries for LGBT tolerance; Scotus ruling

The following text has been removed (along with references) from the lead on the basis that it is; "controversial".

"The United States is listed below almost all full democracies (except Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica) in the UCLA Williams Institute world index of social acceptance of LBGTQIA+ people (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBTI-Nov-2021.pdf).

and;

"In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that providers of creative services could, given specified conditions, discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people.(https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-lgbtq-rights-colorado)".

Both sections are surely entirely and very relevant to the article? In what way are they controversial? They are simply facts, there is nothing contested about them. I have reverted on the basis of BRD and begin the discussion here.Do any other editors have an opinion? Thank you in advance. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Their editions have a clear intention to show the United States in the worst possible light regarding LGBT rights. As the stable edition of the article indicates, the United States has made significant progress on LGBT rights since 1980, a fact too important that its editions want to hide. In the United States, same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption are legal nationwide, and polls consistently show that around 70% of the American population is in favor. There is also national protection for LGBT people in labor matters. Of course, not everything is perfect, but the vision you try to impose is clearly desproportionate, biased and ill-intentioned.

Besides me, there are other users who have also expressed their disagreement with you. Do not undo the stable edition of the article again without reaching a consensus, otherwise you could be blocked. Esterau16 (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Esterau16. I do not doubt that your edits are in good faith, but I would mention that the "other users" you refer to have simply made homophobic slurs, some of which have now been edited out but are present in the edit history. I do not suggest in any way that you are the source of the homophobic slurs. My edits about the international table and the SCOTUS decision are simply matters of fact which balance what is otherwise an overly positive-looking article on LGBT in the US. Progress over the period you mention is important, but so is the recent trend in the US to reverse some of the progress; as is the gap between the US as a world-leader and its relatively modest status in respect of LGBT rights. In process terms, I reverted your edit on the basis of WP:BRD and the correct procedure is for a discussion to take place here. Instead, you have reverted my revert without discussion. We are both relatively new editors, I see, so I think the best thing is to take advice. In my opinion, your action might amount to edit warring (I might be wrong and I will defer to more experienced editors). I do not wish to accuse you unfairly and so rather than go to that process or any other of the dispute resolution processes I will do what I think is the lowest rung and ask for a third opinion. This has now been done here. I will also put this at your talk page. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is precisely your edits that unbalance the article. Progress in the United States regarding LGBT rights is not simply important, it is the most important and the most relevant fact to highlight. In United States:

- Same-sex marriage was legalized throughout the country.

- Same-sex adoption was legalized throughout the country.

- The Supreme Court banned employment discrimination against LGBT people nationwide.

- There is a federal law that punishes hate crimes against LGBT people.

None of these fundamental and essential things have been reversed, therefore there is no reason big enough and solid enough to place at the beginning of the article that the United States is a backward country, in decline and with low acceptance of LGBT people, so start the article that way is clearly unbalanced and disproportionate.

Recent controversies over LGBT issues in US politics have focused primarily on transgender issues, which is mentioned in the article introduction. It is clearly mentioned that transgender issues have a mixed treatment. And this is not something exclusive to the United States, since in recent years far-right groups and radical conservatives that promote attacks and hate speech against LGBT people (especially transgender people), have been growing throughout the world, including developed countries.

Regarding the Supreme Court ruling that you mention, in the article there is already a section about Supreme Court rulings on LGBT issues, and the ruling you refer to is mentioned there. Therefore, the article is properly balanced.

And I reverted your edition, because you reverted the stable edition of the article, which has been there for a very long time. When you want to undo the stable edition of a article and make significant changes, you are the one who must first start a discussion to create consensus. The consensus is not only put a comment on the discussion page.

My conclusion on this topic is that the positive aspects of LGBT rights in the United States outweigh the negative aspects, therefore it is the positive aspects that should be named and highlighted first. Esterau16 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Esterau16. Happy to discuss the article here once we have a third opinion, or perhaps another route, to help decide which version should stand while we discuss. For info, in my opinion at present the lead (for an article which is far too long) reads like 'how well the US has done since the 1980s' rather than as an introduction to a WP:NPOV article about LGBT in the US. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16. Do have a look at the 3O kindly provided by @StereoFolic. It is very helpful. I am not sure, tbh, whether the previous version s/he refers to is yours or mine. To err on the side of caution, I'm going to leave it at yours while I work on an improved lead. I'll propose it here to see what you, and maybe others, think. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Charlie Campbell 28 Yes, I was referring to the version opening with 'progress since the 1980s' StereoFolic (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, @StereoFolic! Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I don't think either lede is very suitable for this article. I agree that the one provided by @Charlie Campbell 28 pushes a POV too strongly for the lede, while I also agree that the status quo lede unnecessarily frames the topic in terms of 'progress since the 1980s'. I think a better lede would attempt to describe the current state in very high-level terms, and at the end note recent changes and areas of activism and reaction. In the meantime, I recommend keeping the previous (again, disagreeable to me) status quo, as this is a relatively high-activity article, so it more plausibly represents a consensus. Note that unfortunately LGBT rights are a contentious topic, so extra caution is needed when editing. Drastically changing the lede in a CTOP article without prior consensus is usually asking for a revert. StereoFolic (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, @StereoFolic. I understand what you mean about both versions of the lead and your view looks wise and sensible. I will propose a new lead along the lines you suggest. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it back for now, @StereoFolic:. KlayCax (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

US is gay friendly, fu*kin* fa**ots! 2A01:5A8:40D:D940:0:0:8BD:AE7B (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not actually gay, but I do recognise your comment as the kind of thing small town guys in the US say when they're desperate for a dick up their ass but don't feel that fits well with their self-image. My advice to you is, be honest with yourself; you'll enjoy life much more in the end. Good luck with it all, anyway. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Should a navigation sidebar be used?

I believe a sidebar (at the top of a page) would be very useful.

This is the image that should be used for the header. It depicts a map of the contiguous United States with the pride flag.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@OMGShay 92: It is against the consensus to put an image in navigation sidebar, because it's arbitrarly decorative. 213.132.76.9 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT in the USA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBT in the USA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 26 § LGBT in the USA until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Are they still advanced?

After MAGA victory? 78.83.12.102 (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We'll update it after something happens, ex: legislation, executive order, but for now all we can do is hope we won't have to. Realtent (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)