Talk:Same-sex rights in micronations

Remove macronational LGB map

This is an article about micronational policies; macronation-specific images have no place here. /swέna/ 💬 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

5 admins voted in favor, none voted against. No additional comments on this talk page. Removing map. /swέna/ 💬 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Split into LGB and T articles

This article currently focuses almost entirely on LGB, and all of T is crammed into a single column. I don't believe there is enough room on the page to give T the attention it deserves; I would propose that we rename this article to "LGB rights in micronations", so that it focuses purely on sexual orientation; and then create a new article entitled "Transgender rights in micronations" to cover the T. /swέna/ 💬 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've finally gone ahead and done this. /swέna/ 💬 20:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Context: 8 months of notice on the talkpage, and 3 admin endorsements. /swέna/ 💬 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Make that 4 admin approvals. /swέna/ 💬 08:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rationale

• When LGB and T are in the same article, T will always be an afterthought. One column, as both Wikipedia and our old article had, is not enough. Trans rights deserve their own article.
• We don't lump alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco laws into the same page, and we shouldn't lump here, either.
• Having trans be in a different section of the same article is a bad idea; it overcomplicates the article, and needlessly conflates two separate phenomena. Are we really going to have two walls of charts, listing every continent and micronation twice... in the same article? There's certainly not room to fit them into the same table.

/swέna/ 💬 Written: 06:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC); Posted: 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC).

Example

The below is an example of what a trans table could look like. /swέna/ 💬 20:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Micronation	Medical transition allowed for...		Can legally change...			Legally identical to target-gender cispeople?	Notes
	Adults	Children	Name	Gender	Sex
Cultural leftist example	Informed consent	According to WPATH guidelines	Yes	At will		Yes	Gender-affirmation is available to everyone, without gatekeeping!! It's also 100% government-funded!
Transmedicalist example	According to Harry Benjamin's standards of care	No	Yes	After HRT	After SRS	After transition	Transsexualism is seen as a legitimate psychiatric condition necessitating treatment after a proper diagnosis has been made. The medical transition of children is disallowed, due to the high proportion that desist from GID by adulthood.
Reactionary example	No	No	Only if new name matches birth sex	No		No	We will never bow to the (((liberal))) elite or the WEF forcing our children to be gay and eat bugs.

Adoption

This table is, quite notably, missing a column for adoption. /swέna/ 💬 20:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Adoption can easily be added once the trans entries have been moved into the trans article. /swέna/ 💬 08:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have finally done this. /swέna/ 💬 18:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternative to "LGB"

I'm getting feedback that "LGB" is fraught as a term. Does anyone have a good alternative? /swέna/ 💬 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ended-up going with "Minority sexualities"; but if anyone has a better suggestion, please do share! /swέna/ 💬 22:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Swena: Keep it as LGBT, the separation of LGB and T also seems unneeded. The term "Minority" isn't really a popular used and is even viewed by many LGBT members as offensive in most cases. --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cookieman1.1.1: If you wish to argue against giving trans rights its own article, please do so in detail at #Split into LGB and T articles; this section is just for discussing the name.

"LGBT" is not an accurate label for a list focused solely on the rights of non-heterosexuals, so it cannot be used. I hadn't seen it said yet that "minority" is an issue, but noted; that is unfortunate. I'll continue trying to think of a better alternative...

Worth noting: my username is "Swena", not "Theodia"; I have updated your ping. /swέna/ 💬 01:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Swena: I have to agree with others that "minority" is pejorative and should not be used. "Sexual orientation" would be better because it's really what that's about. And any reference to LGB in the article should also refer to the issue as being one about sexual orientation. Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 02:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming, Cloe. We talked at length on Discord, but to sum it up for readers, here's a list of every proposal I've seen so far and why each is problematic in some way: "Sexual orientation rights" is awkward-sounding in English, and an article on it would theoretically have to cover heterosexuality, which isn't particularly relevant given that not even the LGBT homelands ban that. Same issue for "Sexuality rights", which is unfortunate because this was well-received on Discord. "Sexual Diversities" theoretically has the same problem, though it's less-likely to be interpreted that way. "Sexual Diversities" without "Gender and" in-front of it also suffers from the fact that the uninitiated (normies) might interpret it as including diversity of the sex organs or even potentially kinks, which is counterproductive. "Queer rights" was one that I thought of days ago, but it has a couple problems: one is that it can include "genderqueer", which is counterproductive for an article *just* on non-heterosexual sexualities; another is that "queer" is still derogatory for some people; and still another is that the uninitiated (normies) may misunderstand it. "Sexual minorities", another option, is derived from a governmental term, "Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities" (GSRM); but it's disliked because it wasn't created by the LGBT movement itself, but rather by government bureaucrats; and it also has the problem that normies may understand it to refer also to intersex people, who would probably be more aptly described by the "Gender Minorities" part of this term (even though they're more-strictly speaking a sex minority, especially given that most intersex fit in the gender binary). "LGB" can't be used, because it is typically nowadays used to exclude transpeople, which is obviously not what we're trying to do here. And of course, "Minority sexualities" can't be used, because "minority" is (as I have today learned) not a term appreciated by the LGBT community as a whole. A subpage, like "LGBT rights in micronations/LGB" was downvoted on Discord, and anyways would violate wiki page name conventions. Listing "Lesbian, bi, and gay rights" would ultimately have the same issue as "LGB rights". "Same-sex rights", proposed by Jonathan, sounds like a good choice at first blush, but it probably doesn't make literal sense; still, it seems like an okay choice. "SGL rights" (Same Gender Loving) was another one that I'd considered, but it's apparently not widely known outside African-American circles (meaning it would not be effective as a title, since not as many people would be looking for it), and I had some concerns about being accused of cultural appropriation. There are possible remixes of these where we don't keep strictly to the "X rights in micronations" format used by all these such list articles, but most ultimately have the same issues listed above. /swέna/ 💬 04:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cloe de Sancratosia: What do you think about "LGB+ rights in micronations"? This would clearly include sexualities other than just lesbian, gay, and bisexual. And with the hatnote at the top of the article and the detail in the intro, it should be clear to anyone reading that it's not being used as a way to exclude trans people, but rather just as a way of focusing temporarily on the sexualities. Also curious what you think about Jonathan's "Same-sex rights". /swέna/ 💬 04:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Swena: I think that if we consider "Sexual diversity rights" has possibly encompassing others, all the way to straight, then LGB+ has the same problem, maybe a little bit less but the + can be interpreted in bad faith as encompassing straight people, same as will "Sexual diversity". The first one, at least, does not have the problem of being associated with the "Drop the T" movement. "Same-sex rights" is not bad actually. However, there is the issue of bisexual erasure in "Same-sex". Could "Homosexuality and bisexuality rights" work? You move a little bit away from the "Drop the T" movement, it's factual and does not play in bisexual erasure while restraining from bad faith inclusion of straight people. Just a thought, not entirely sure but it seems like a compromise on all fronts. Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cloe de Sancratosia: Huh, okay. I wouldn't have thought of "LGB+" being interpreted in that way; it seems like a stretch. But I guess it's possible.

Regarding "Same-sex rights", I'm not so sure that it does perform bisexual erasure, since from a policy perspective, the only things being legislated on here are in regards to people wanting to do things with the same sex. Bisexuals by definition fall into that category.

Ah, "Homosexual and bisexual rights" is another one I'd thought of previously, but I apparently missed it in my super-long list above. This one might be okay, but it has two issues I can think of: #1 is that it's very long, and #2 is that it excludes gynandromorphophiles (people attracted to non-op trans people) (though, this may not be a significant issue; idk). Contention #1 could be addressed with "Homo/bi rights", "Homo & bi rights", etc; though, this seems awkward? Idk.

The admin team (minus me) currently wants "Sexual minorities", though as mentioned this could implicate intersex people, which is weird for an article that has nothing to do with intersex issues. Also it has the issue of using "minorities", which is a term that y'all have made clear is not to be used.

/swέna/ 💬 22:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Swena: Well, why have talk pages if the admins are going to do whatever they want anyway? Especially if no one here has said one positive thing about using "Sexual minorities" why choose it anyway?

I think we proposed many good alternatives and there is probably one in there that could work. But, obviously does it really matter if minds are already made up? Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 23:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cloe de Sancratosia: Minds can always be changed, fwiw. I'll try to pick the least-bad option and go with that, and hopefully the rest of the admin team is okay with it. If they do go with "Sexual minorities", I just hope it's when I'm busy with real life and don't have time to get involved, because this is all so tiring, lol. /swέna/ 💬 23:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, if any compelling argument for using "Sexual minorities" is made then sure, go for it, but I'm still waiting and I have a feeling we'll wait for a long time. Let's hope that no rushed decision will be made by the admin team on the matter. Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Some other options: "Gay/bi/etc rights", "Same-sex attraction rights" (might still conceivably contribute to bi erasure, I guess), "Queer sexuality rights" (explicitly focuses on sexuality, so avoids confusing with "genderqueer"; and the added context of "sexuality" likely prevents most concerns about "queer" being using pejoratively). /swέna/ 💬 23:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolution

It was ultimately decided that there was only going to be compromise here. "Same-sex rights" was determined to be that compromise. Originally proposed by the owner of MicroWiki, Jonathan; easily-recognizable for the uninitiated; perfectly fine for SEO; perfectly on-topic; approved by both a queer feminist and people wholly outside that millieu. Its first potential problem, namely that it doesn't necessarily make complete sense when read literally, is not a serious issue, since it doesn't sound wrong, and people understand it. Its other potential problem, that it may be interpreted as contributing to bi erasure, is avoided by the fact that the article is specifically about the rights sought by those who engage in same-gender-loving activity, which includes both bisexuals and homosexuals. The third potential issue, that of novel definitional differences between "gender" and "sex", is addressed by the continuous conflation of the two throughout the article.
For an identifier that works just as well, I went with "SGL", since it works perfectly, has been received positively, and avoids forcing a gender binary. I really hope this doesn't count as cultural appropriation, because I don't have any better term than that.
/swέna/ 💬 00:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Decided to use "same-sex-attracted people" instead of "SGL people", primarily to avoid potential future issues. One bonus is that it ties in better with the title of the article, and also that it needs essentially no further explanation, other than perhaps a primer on "sex" vs "gender"; but the same could be said of "same-gender-loving", too. /swέna/ 💬 08:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)