Wikipedia:No queerphobia

This project page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion.

This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.

Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBT views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by the WP:NPOV policy. Expressions of homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia, transphobia, arophobia, acephobia, or general queerphobia are not welcome here. They disrupt the encyclopedia by promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBT editors.

The essay WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE lays out why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia and results in blocking and banning; others such as Wikipedia:No racists, Wikipedia:No Nazis, and Wikipedia:No Confederates lay out more specific guidelines for those forms of bigotry; this essay specifically serves to outline common anti-LGBT beliefs, disruptive manifestations of them, and the systems of recourse on English Wikipedia.

Context of this essay[edit]

Discussions have raged on for decades about how Wikipedia should write about LGBT people and topics. Gender and sexuality (WP:GENSEX) are currently considered a contentious topic (formerly "discretionary sanctions"), meaning that editors contributing to articles and discussions about these topics must strictly follow Wikipedia's behavioral and editorial guidelines. MOS:GENDERID and the supplementary essay MOS:GIDINFO contain the most up-to-date guidelines for writing about transgender people on Wikipedia.

Anti-LGBT editors frequently disrupt Wikipedia by promoting misinformation or pushing fringe viewpoints (particularly dangerous in medical articles), and create an unwelcoming environment for other editors. Editors who are unable to set aside their beliefs about the LGBT community when editing or who seek to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints may be restricted from editing.

This essay outlines common queerphobic beliefs, popular misinformation about the LGBT community, and groups known to spread and support it, so that administrators and editors may recognize them, address them, and show queerphobes the door.

Arbitration remedy history[edit]

Timeline of Arbitration Committee decisions regarding gender and sexuality disputes.

In 2013 in the Sexology case (WP:ARBSEX) the arbitration committee authorized discretionary sanctions for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). In 2014 this was updated to all pages
In 2013 ArbCom had the Manning naming dispute case (WP:ARBMND) which found The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology or (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
In 2015, the Gamergate case (WP:ARBGG) authorized discretionary sanctions stating Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case. This superseded ARBSEX and WP:ARBMND was updated accordingly.
In 2021, arbcom created the Gender and sexuality case (WP:GENSEX) as a shell for authorizing discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people., including WP:GAMERGATE and WP:ARBMND. In 2022, WP:GENSEX was amended to Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic.

Beliefs, expressions, and actions[edit]

This essay, and sister essays such as Wikipedia:No racists, Wikipedia:No Confederates, and Wikipedia:No Nazis, have run into a common criticism: "we should sanction editors for their behaviors, not their beliefs".

This is not an unfair argument so it bears exploration. The essay Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive addresses the issue like thus (emphasis added):

[Bigots can edit here], if they edit without engaging in any hate speech or hateful conduct (which includes self-identification with hate movements). While this will be impossible for many bigots, presumably some number do manage this, people who write articles about botany without letting on that they think the Holocaust was a hoax, or fix lots of typos and never mention that they think it was a mistake to let women vote. Wikipedia policy does not concern itself with people's private views.[5] The disruption caused by hateful conduct lies in the expression, not the belief.
The flip side of this is true too: If someone uses a bunch of racial slurs because they think it's funny, or posts an edgy statement about gay people on their userpage as a "social experiment", they are engaged in disruptive editing, even if they don't personally harbor hateful views.

This essay is based on that underlying principle (most succinctly translated as your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins). If you think all LGBT people are amoral and doomed to hell, or are deviants requiring conversion therapy, but act civilly, never mention it, and edit articles about boats or bands or something else unrelated - you have absolutely nothing to worry about and your contributions to the Encyclopedia are very welcomed. This essay isn't about you or that. If you try and make all LGBT people are [amoral and doomed to hell]/[deviants requiring conversion therapy] the first sentence of LGBT, or say such things on talk pages - that is a different issue and the main focus of this essay.

Queerphobic beliefs[edit]

Queerphobia is the fear, hatred, or dislike of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer people. Queerphobes commonly believe that LGBT people and identities are deviant, and should be denied rights and protections.

Frequent anti-LGBT narratives include:

That being LGBT is a conscious choice or unnatural.
That LGBT identities are inherently sexual, fetishistic, predatory, or pedophilic.
That the LGBT community is grooming children or otherwise dangerous to them.
That LGBT children cannot know their identities.
The existence of a "gay agenda", "gender ideology", "alphabet mafia", or "transgender cult" (etc.) promoting or forcing queerness upon society.
That LGBT people overall have greater societal power than cisgender/heterosexual people and/or that cisgender/heterosexual people are oppressed by LGBT people. (See heterophobia and Super Straight)
That LGBT rights conflict with parental or religious rights.
That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women, or the rights of cisgender queer people.

Common beliefs often include opposition to civil rights and legal protections:

That marriage, same-sex adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
That recognizing same-sex marriage is a slippery slope toward legalizing sex with ducks or other strange sexual practices.
That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity.
That trans people should be unable to change their legal gender, be excluded from gendered spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing gender-affirming healthcare.

Overlapping with the narratives and beliefs above are more medically-related pseudoscientific/unevidenced proposals and typologies. The guideline WP:FRINGE addresses how to handle these in articles (we don't include them in articles on the broader topic, but if notable we can discuss them in their own articles while making clear they're fringe). Organizations known to promote these are listed further in the essay.

That LGBT identities and/or gender dysphoria are the result of mental illness.^[1]
That LGBT identities should be cured, treated, or suppressed^[2] - commonly referred to as conversion therapy, advocates often use terms such as reparative therapy or gender exploratory therapy and may justify it in scientific or religious terms.
That LGBT people should be forced to undergo medical or psychological treatments, procedures, or testing on the basis of their identity.^[2]
That LGBT children only identify as such due to media exposure, peer pressure or "social contagion" (see Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria^[3]^: 39–43 and Acquired homosexuality).
That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth.^[1]^[2]
That transgender women who aren't exclusively attracted to men are fetishists (Blanchard's transsexualism typology).^[4]^[3]^: 41–42

Queerphobic editors on Wikipedia frequently think:

That anti-LGBT editing is protected by free speech or the neutral point of view policy.
That deadnaming or misgendering transgender subjects is justified by "historical accuracy" or "basic biology".
That LGBT editors have a conflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identity.

Possible manifestations[edit]

These beliefs may manifest in various ways that damage the encyclopedia. Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible ones.

WP:TENDENTIOUS promotion of WP:FRINGE viewpoints about the LGBT community, commonly WP:SEALIONING and civil POV-pushing.
Hostility toward other editors, such as regarding LGBT editors as inherently biased, or refusing to gender them correctly.
Denigrating comments about the LGBT community in articles and talk space, particularly through the use of dog whistles.
Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBT sentiments.
Deadnaming or misgendering article subjects, or arguing against using their current pronouns in violation of Wikipedia's MOS:GENDERID guidelines.

Aspersions[edit]

Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked.

Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.

What to do if you encounter queerphobia[edit]

You should always assume good faith and exercise civility. However, our social policies are not a suicide pact; we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance.

For a new editor, understand that they are likely ignorant of Wikipedia systems and standards. Point them toward relevant guidelines and policies. If they are editing material related to gender identification, make them aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions via the {{Contentious topics/alert/first|gg}} or {{Contentious topics/alert|gg}} templates. If they are arguing against the guidelines, make it clear that you can't change the guidelines in an article discussion and direct them toward where such discussions can take place.

If an editor consistently and chronically disrupts the encyclopedia by promoting queerphobic opinions/viewpoints, you should collect relevant diffs and report them. If an editor was already made aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions, then you can request enforcement at WP:AE. Otherwise, request administrator attention at WP:ANI.

Editors brazenly vandalizing articles or using slurs may be immediately blocked. Wikipedia has WP:zero tolerance for such behavior. If an edit is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, it may be subject to Wikipedia:revision deletion. If an edit breaches someone's privacy, you should request WP:Suppression.

It can be very tempting, especially in article talk pages, to debate or rebut anti-LGBT talking points on their own merits. However, remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Stick to source-based and policy-based discussions which serve to improve articles. If a conversation is blatantly unconstructive or off-topic, then consider collapsing, refactoring, or moving it so that you and other editors don't waste your time.

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b "APA Policy Statement on Affirming Evidence-Based Inclusive Care for Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Nonbinary Individuals, Addressing Misinformation, and the Role of Psychological Practice and Science" (PDF).
^ ^a ^b ^c o'Connor, Aoife M.; Seunik, Maximillian; Radi, Blas; Matthyse, Liberty; Gable, Lance; Huffstetler, Hanna E.; Meier, Benjamin Mason (2022). "Transcending the Gender Binary under International Law: Advancing Health-Related Human Rights for Trans* Populations". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (3): 409–424. doi:10.1017/jme.2022.84.
^ ^a ^b Rider, G. Nic; Tebbe, Elliot A. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". In Goldberg, A. E.; Beemyn, G. (eds.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781544393858.n12. ISBN 978-1-5443-9382-7. S2CID 241937306.
^ Gijs L, Carroll RA (2011). "Should Transvestic Fetishism Be Classified in DSM 5? Recommendations from the WPATH Consensus Process for Revision of the Diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism". International Journal of Transgenderism. 12 (4): 189–197. doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.550766.

[APA-statement-1] "APA Policy Statement on Affirming Evidence-Based Inclusive Care for Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Nonbinary Individuals, Addressing Misinformation, and the Role of Psychological Practice and Science" (PDF).

[O'Conner_et_al.-2] 'Connor, Aoife M.; Seunik, Maximillian; Radi, Blas; Matthyse, Liberty; Gable, Lance; Huffstetler, Hanna E.; Meier, Benjamin Mason (2022). "Transcending the Gender Binary under International Law: Advancing Health-Related Human Rights for Trans* Populations". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (3): 409–424. doi:10.1017/jme.2022.84.

[Rider_2021-3] Rider, G. Nic; Tebbe, Elliot A. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". In Goldberg, A. E.; Beemyn, G. (eds.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781544393858.n12. ISBN 978-1-5443-9382-7. S2CID 241937306.

[wpath1-4] Gijs L, Carroll RA (2011). "Should Transvestic Fetishism Be Classified in DSM 5? Recommendations from the WPATH Consensus Process for Revision of the Diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism". International Journal of Transgenderism. 12 (4): 189–197. doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.550766.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]