The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the
procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2023.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
Low Grade Sources
After looking at all 224 of the present sources, All but 10 of them come from low grade news sources (ie, news sources which regularly post incorrect or misleading articles). One of the 10 remaining is a twitter tweet, and the rest are mostly court cases. Does it worry anyone else that such an incredible amount of this page is reliant on such organizations? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.59.118.255 (
talk) 02:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The sources in the article are not low grade sources. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedias
reliable sourcing guidelines. You can also refer to the list of
perennial sources which list most regularly used organizations for sourcing and consensus about their reliable use.
Raladic (
talk) 14:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Florida 24-hour wait period
I am a transgender woman living in Florida, and believe the following section of this article is inaccurate:
"In August 2022, the state of Florida voted to require any trans adult seeking gender affirming healthcare to receive approval from the Florida Board of Medicine at least 24 hours in advance."
I have encountered no such requirement during my treatment. It appears that the 24 hour waiting period was proposed, but never signed into law nor did the Florida Board of Medicine update their requirements to include this provision.
2600:8807:C61B:3200:6FD7:7C60:F7BE:7481 (
talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm wondering, and feel free to chime in, to what extent this article should involve content on the similar anti-LGBT push in the rest of the English-speaking world, the UK being the most prominent example. While yes, we both have borders and our own legislatures, the level of influence the digital age has given the two in stoking anti-LGBT hatred for each other is not inconsiderable. That is, when anti-LGBT rhetoric is being pushed in the US, those pushing it will frequently cite British media pieces and British court cases, and vise versa. Thoughts?
Snokalok (
talk) 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
There is enough US only news that already fills this topic here, so I don’t think mixing it in would help (as tie article is already long enough as it is), but you are free to start an article about British (or European, since there’s some other countries in Europe that are also heavily moving in that direction) anti-LGBT movements and link it in the See also here.
Raladic (
talk) 07:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that there's a very strong connection between this social movement and the analogous one that began earlier in the UK, but it should only be brought up in the context of sources which directly make a case for the two being linked, or at least directly compare them, otherwise bringing it up would amount to original synthesis, in my opinion.
207.164.2.98 (
talk) 04:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This is an article about a fascist movement targeting an oppressed minority group. Saying we shouldn’t cite sources that side with that group would be like saying we shouldn’t cite sources that side with Jews regarding the Holocaust, or side with Native Americans about the trail of tears.
The neutral point between no bigotry and yes bigotry is not, nor ever should it be, some degree of bigotry.
Snokalok (
talk) 19:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If this Wikipedia page defines the "2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" as a "fascist movement targeting an oppressed minority group" then this article is in violation of this website's mission to provide a neutral viewpoint. Aside from the accusations of pro-LGBT supporters, there is no evidence that this movement is "fascist."
To write this article with the perspective that this movement is "fascist" or comparable to the Trail of Tears or the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust is a dishonest and biased analysis from a pro-LGBT perspective. There are many Americans who believe that there are only two genders, that children should not be allowed to attend drag shows, that certain books in libraries are too obscene and shouldn't be available, or that it is unfair for transgender athletes to compete in the sport of the gender they identify with.
This movement is a divisive issue in the United States, with many supporters and challengers. Regardless of the personal opinions of editors, this article needs to comply with the rules of the website by maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not pro-LGBT nor anti-LGBT.
BlueShirtz (
talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
While The Daily Wire is considered generally unreliable, it is not because it supports any particular movement. "Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified". Even sources that are "biased" may be included as long as they are considered reliable, but may require attribution, which is generally determined by community consensus and
WP:NPOV...
DN (
talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
"Even sources that are "biased" may be included" Wikipedia policy on
biased sources is that they are acceptable: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Whether Xtra Magazine is a reliable source is another question.
Dimadick (
talk) 11:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned, the neutral point between yes bigotry and no bigotry is not some amount of bigotry, it’s no bigotry.
Snokalok (
talk) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If it is written in this article that the "2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" is a "bigoted" movement then this article is not neutral. There are pro-LGBT supporters who may make that accusation, but stating a contested assertion like that as a fact in a Wikipedia article is failing to meet a neutral point of view.
BlueShirtz (
talk) 05:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you hearing yourself right now? Genuine question
Snokalok (
talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Just, okay, by your logic, should we be rewriting our article on slavery because enough people down in places like TN and FL have started saying that they think slavery was actually good? Does more people in a country coming to support the obviously bigoted position, make it not bigoted by virtue of gaining support?
Snokalok (
talk) 20:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This article should be unbiased and factual. Stating that "The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is a bigoted movement" is biased and not factual. It could be stated, if there are sources to support it, that there have been pro-LGBT supporters who accuse this movement of bigotry, but you cannot state that accusation as a fact in an online encyclopedia.
In reference to your comparison, the
slavery in the United States article is a well-written example of this. It does not state opinions as facts, it does not state facts as opinions, and it uses nonjudgmental language. By following those standards, it complies with Wikipedia's rule of maintaining a neutral point of view as this article should too.
BlueShirtz (
talk) 01:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Edit removes considerable amount of seemingly cited material from the lead and body, alleging WP:OR
[1] There are a lot of citations included here for an WP:OR claim...
Marjorie Taylor Greene, U.S. representative from
Georgia who has introduced several bills targeting the LGBT community and spread anti-LGBT conspiracy theories[12][13]
Matt Walsh, podcast host and activist known for his campaigns against transgender healthcare and for presenting the documentary What Is a Woman?[4][5]
While I haven't had time to look at each citation individually, these types of large edits usually raise some red flags. Pinging
FMSky for further discussion.
DN (
talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
that was only recently added by an IP (
1,
2) and, again, is original research unless these sources directly state that these people are "notable figures of the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" --
FMSky (
talk) 22:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I see, so there was no consensus prior to inclusion. However, in the spirit of
WP:TALKDONTREVERT, let's look at some examples. Starting with the citations for government officials like
Marjorie Taylor Greene ("Marjorie Taylor Greene introduces bill to make gender-affirming care for transgender youth a felony") and
Ron DeSantis ("DeSantis's attacks on LGBTQ people through the public education system--his "Don't Say Gay" legislation, now in effect--has already gained him national notoriety"). They seem to confirm anti-LGBT legislation by these two. The lead reads...
The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is an ongoing conservative political backlash most notably from Republican lawmakers and congressional leaders, against LGBT people which has included bathroom use restrictions, bans on gender-affirming care, anti-LGBT curriculum laws, laws against drag performances, book bans, boycotts, and conspiracy theories around grooming.
So, these two notable figures not only seem to meet the required parameters, they are also cited, which means it is not
WP:OR, at least as far as I can tell.
DN (
talk) 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Those sources also don't call them "notable figures" in the movement... However them introducing anti lgtb legislation is notable and can and should definitely be included
FMSky (
talk) 00:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with bringing back the list, and I'd like to propose also listing organizations like Genspect and Gays Against Groomers
Snokalok (
talk) 02:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think an amended list would be more productive. Keep in mind, the lead states it's focus is on "lawmakers and congressional leaders" against LGBT people. IMO it would be better to keep it simple and focused on the "leaders" of the movement, ie the representatives elected by the constituency of anti-LGBTQ+ voters. While many of these representatives may be republican, I think any representative, republican or democrat, that pushes legislation against LGBTQ+ may qualify, IMO.
DN (
talk) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
So far this would include MTG, DeSantis and Trump IMO.
DN (
talk) 05:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Then that raises another question - why are we focusing on lawmakers and congressional leaders? It's not they who created or led this panic, it's figures like Chris Rufo and Chaya Raichik
Snokalok (
talk) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If your aim is to remove them, I would point to existing reliable sources as reasons why they are DUE. If you wish to keep Rufo and Raichek, it would seem that you should find consensus to change the lead, which would again require citations to support said change. I am open to your ideas, but reliable citations always come first. Agreed? Cheers.
DN (
talk) 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I don't think harrassment, doxxing, and murders of people for existing, as well as the stripping of basic human rights of those people by vile politicians, count as mere "political backlash". I don't have the proper, actually neutral wording in mind, or I would've changed it boldly. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 02:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's literally no mention of "murders" or "doxxing" on the whole article. I believe you're victimizing yourself.
2800:200:E630:106E:FC41:8D7F:7D06:56CC (
talk) 14:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The "Violence" section references a murder.
Jruderman (
talk) 22:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply