Category talk:LGBT

Redefining the LGBT Category

Hi; at the moment, the LGBT category is specific to only lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans related material, which becomes problematic when trying to categorize LGBT+ related material (ex: asexuality, pansexuality, demisexuality, etc). Most of the queer population today use LGBT+ or LGBTQIA+ to be more inclusive, so I wanted to suggest redefining the category to include the queer related pages that aren't necessarily lesbian, gay, bi, or trans. Thoughts? Gray (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like what you suggest would cover everything outside of heterosexuality. Is that what you have in mind? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Gray (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I oppose this proposal. Categorizing by "everything except" is not a good practice. It would also be too large a scope for one category. In addition, the category name wouldn't reflect the content. There might be another option, though. We might consider restructuring the topic so that the L, G, B, and T aren't grouped together, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, what I was more suggesting is a LGTBQIA category or a queer category or something along those lines, as LGTB is just a shortened version of the longer acronym. But if making a different category for that would be easier that's also an option, I just thought it would be a good idea to have a category for LGBT+. But if there are other options then sure. --Gray (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We should not try and split and expand categories the way En wiki has done. It is quite hard for new readers to find their way through a category section with 50+ items, as many biogs do have on En. The principle of simplicity should apply throughout, not just to the prose. If a person is known and notable for some rare activity, why not put it in the article together with sources? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

While I see what you're saying, I personally do stick with the belief that it would be easier to have all LGBT+ pages in the same area. That being said, I can see that I'm probably not going to end up getting anything done because of the people involved, so I guess, uh, we'll stay as we are until somebody else in the LGBT+ community with a wikipedia account stumbles up and decides to help, which is unlikely. --Gray (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Categorize as paraphilia

The LGBT category should also be categorized as a paraphilia because it used to be and is still often considered a paraphilia.
And in fact it is really a paraphilia because it is a deviation, it is abnormal. Wwikix (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree. We should use the same categories in this case as en.wiki does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Our article Paraphilia says that the term "means that someone is sexually aroused by people (or by things) that are unable to return their affection. The word can also be used to refer to sexual practices which are bad for the mind or body and are mental disorders." If we assume that's a valid definition (it's defined differently at enwiki), then which part are you going to claim applies to LGBT? Enwiki defines it differently and goes on to say "No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones" (that statement has two sources). If there is no precise distinction, then I think it's wrong to categorize LGBT under this negative category. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• No, this is more like "sexual orientation". Homosexuality was removed from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. [1] ——Neotarf (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)