Q: Those sources are clearly biased! This violates
WP:NPOV
!
A:
That is not what NPOV means.
Q: How can they be “anti-LGBTQ” if they’re gay?!
A: ignoring whether or not they’re being honest about their sexual orientation, it’s entirely possible for someone to advocate against their own (demographic’s) interests. See
House negro
.
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 has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture 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
Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization 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
Q: Those sources are clearly biased! This violates
WP:NPOV
!
A:
That is not what NPOV means.
Q: How can they be “anti-LGBTQ” if they’re gay?!
A: ignoring whether or not they’re being honest about their sexual orientation, it’s entirely possible for someone to advocate against their own (demographic’s) interests. See
House negro
.
This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.
Please be cautious with statements like these
we've just had an entire RFC about this. I don't think we'll need to rivisit the issue anytime soon. Discussion closed.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This statement from the ADL could potentially open up a rather nasty can of worms and it might not be a good idea to draw undue attention to it:
"while GAG claims that they cannot be anti-gay or anti-lesbian as they themselves identify as gay or lesbian, ADL's definition of anti-LGBTQ+ extremism includes any person who pushes false claims and conspiracy theories about all or parts of the LGBTQ+ community, regardless of how they personally identify"
Wikipedia needs to focus on what reliable sources state about what they are as a fact, not extrapolations on the labels they use to describe themselves. Reliable sources have thus far described GAG as a far right, anti-LGBTQ hate group, as perpetuators of the utterly baseless groomer-libel and as stochastic terrorists. They have also exposed their frontrunners as having close ties with the trump campaign, the GOP and major right wing media trusts and think-tanks. Whether members of GAG identify as gay or not shouldn't even be brought up. It would be putting undue weight on GAG's own PR, and therefore legitimizing it.
Also, as someone who has spent excessive time studying the far right and how they think, I feel it necessary to point out that this statement can be read as playing into the far right's rethoric that LGBTQ is a political movement/ideology (see also "gay agenda, "gender ideology", "transgenderism"). I would not be surprised if they are already framing it as the ADL "saying the silent parts out loud". 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the narrative that the GAG are "anti-LGBT" when they're against drag shows that allow children and oppose gender reassignment surgeries for minors, not for adults. We are not talking about
Gender affirming care has positive impacts on trans youth, so yes in being against that they are specifically anti-LGBT, as such care benefits trans youth, who comprise the T. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there are numerous reliable sources that consider them to be anti-LGBT. ––FormalDude(talk) 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LegalSmeagolian, what sources would you rely on to prove that statement? And what also happens with drag shows?
Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about subjects of the article. If you want to have an off-topic discussion with LegalSmeagolian, go to their talk page.
You said you don't agree with the "anti-LGBT" label, that's fine but unless you have actual reliable sources to challenge it, this discussion is meaningless. ––FormalDude(talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from Dept. of Health - office of population affairs. DN (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]