Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Description of group in lede

[edit]

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding "hate group" as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. ... The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence.

Clarke source in lede

[edit]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist You're making novel changes to longstanding content in the lede which are wrong, and based on a source that requires attribution. The content there was a compromise arrived at because nobody wanted to sanction what their position was in wikivoice, so it was left as a quotation.

As you well know, what you've added is completely wrong, and as your edit comment is also wrong I ask you to self-revert. You know they are not advocating for "cisgender" anything.

They advocate for sexual orientation on the basis of sex, and have successfully done so all the way to the supreme court. Even the source you're using does not go as far as you have, instead correctly describing their sex-based advocacy, and using (cis) in brackets throughout to demonstrate it is the author's own interpretation.

What you have here is the opinion of a hostile gender studies academic which you've improperly paraphrased turned into wikivoice instead of attributing, vs what they say about themselves which is very well documented and reported in a wide variety of reliable, neutral secondary sources. Void if removed (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently says The LGB Alliance argues that the rights of transgender people conflict with those of cisgender lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men and argues that same-sex attraction is endangered by the inclusion of trans people.
- You know they are not advocating for "cisgender" anything. - Please point to a single time LGB Alliance has recognized that transgender LGB people exist. All of their advocacy is premised on arguing that transgender lesbians and gay men are not in fact lesbians or gay men. The fact they don't use the word cisgender doesn't matter.
From the source Second, LGB Alliance adopts a narrative that reduces homosexuality to a biological attraction to ‘same-sex’ genitals. ... despite the fact that many trans people also identify as gay/queer, LGB Alliance reinforces its argument that only homo-normative (cis) lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are ‘properly’ homosexual. ... For LGB Alliance, by positioning itself as advancing the rights of same-sex attracted people, a particular order is reinforced: trans members of the gay/queer community are perceived as categorically different to (cis) lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Consequently, it is able to argue that the concerns and needs of trans people, especially those who are regarded as ‘falsely’ claiming a label of homosexuality, are separate to the specifics of LGB activism Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line of the source is: LGB Alliance, as a prime example of gender-critical feminism, argues that the ‘sex-based’ rights of those who are ‘same-sex attracted’ are threatened by the inclusion of trans individuals, and trans lesbians especially.
> All of their advocacy is premised on arguing that transgender lesbians and gay men are not in fact lesbians or gay men
You entirely miss the point, which is that your addition of cisgender - which is, again, misrepresenting the source, which makes it absolutely clear that (cis) is the author's own addition, and one that would be rejected by the subject - is factually incorrect. They advocate on the basis of sex. These are not the same thing. We have ample sources for this.
Please try and present their position neutrally and accurately, without inserting your own language. It isn't about use of "cisgender" it is that "cis lesbian" is not a synonym for "same sex attracted female". Void if removed (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about use of "cisgender" it is that "cis lesbian" is not a synonym for "same sex attracted female" - "same sex attracted female" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this case to include "straight trans men who think the LGBA is nonsense who the LGBA argues are confused lesbians".
Can you find a single source that says they advocate for all LGB people, not just cisgender ones? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source repeatedly specifies cisgender. I don't agree that it asserts that it would be rejected by the subject; that seems to be your personal opinion? I don't even agree that the author presents it as their addition - they use it as a neutral and factual description of what the LGB Alliance advocates for. Whether it's the exact language the LGB alliance would use to describe themselves doesn't matter; we cover sources the way secondary sources do, which means we ought to specify cisgender if the sources do so. Otherwise eg. every anti-abortion group would be described as "pro-life" in the article voice. And if you want to frame it as contested (which you seem to be implying), you would have to find a secondary source of comparable weight that actually contradicts it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it says (cis)gender. It makes it clear this is the author's addition. Footnote one says:
    Gender-critical feminists regard the term ‘cis’ as derogatory, dividing ‘womanhood’ into artificial categories. Here, ‘cis’ is placed in brackets to highlight the hidden but always present gender-critical expectation that ‘real’ women are those whose gender identity matches the sex assigned to them at birth.
    So this is the author's opinion, and one added knowing the subject rejects it.
    Footnote 2 says: Although LGB Alliance claims to support lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, it rarely mentions bisexuality and biphobia. Its main focus is on same-sex attracted women.
    So again, same-sex.
    There are many other, better sources, this is a needless dispute, the current text is simply inaccurate, and the former text was absolutely fine.
    Whether it's the exact language the LGB alliance would use
    It isn't about language, it is about accuracy. Void if removed (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That footnote merely notes that they would not use the term cis; that has no bearing on whether it is an accurate descriptor of their position. Again, it is no different from noting that an anti-abortion group might call itself pro-life - many activist groups have their own distinct takes on language in order to frame issues in whatever manner they believe is most favorable to them; but our coverage, as an encyclopedia, has to reflect the language used in the best-available sources. This is part of the reason we rely on secondary sources. And the best available secondary sources, at the moment, use "cis" to clarify the groups that LGB Alliance supports. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree with aquillion and yfns, they are transparently exclusive of trans people, that is key in their definition of the organization, and it is noted by multiple sources.
attribution of such a statement in WP:LEDE seems silly when there are multiple information about their removal of trans folks in the article below. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about whether they "exclude trans people" it is that "cisgender lesbian" is an inaccurate term for what they actually advocate. We have dozens of sources that use "same sex orientation" why on earth is this being censored with this weak source? Void if removed (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would wager it is because it reads like a roundabout way of equating transmen who like women as lesbian women, and vice versa for transwomen who like men as gay men. As YFNS also points out, it is very very clear given the groups advocacy as noted by the source, they do not advocate for trans people in same sex relationships. What the source said takes priority over an about-self claim from the group in question. Relm (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an about self claim. There are dozens of secondary sources saying this. The status quo ante was a compromise to avoid putting it in wikivoice and instead use a direct quote.
Since this is now a dispute, obviously we're going to have to have a balance of sources discussion, again. Void if removed (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could also link to those previous discussions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, a quick nose count for this discussion shows overwhelming consensus to use 'cisgender' or something of that nature (in fact, it is currently a WP:1AM situation.) Status quo ante only applies in the absence of a consensus; and we have a (rough and tentative, but still present) consensus here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to state that I support @Void if removed and a balance of sources discussion again. I disagree with the use of the word "cisgender" in the article and think it needlessly muddles the meaning. As per the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, there is now "real clarity" (to quote Keir Starmer) on what defines a man and a woman (at least in the UK). By the SC ruling a transwoman (a man identifying as a woman) is a biological male. Therefore a heterosexual transwoman who is attracted to women, is legally a man attracted to women. i.e. heterosexual/straight. Therefore a transwoman claiming to be a lesbian is really just a straight man. The LGB Alliance by their own mission statement "exist to: Stand up for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals", not heterosexuals. Gazumpedheit (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we try to stick to the topic here and avoid needlessly offensive statements? It is only going to further derail discussion of the topic, such as it is. DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a small issue there, because this is the language of the UK Equality Act, as established definitively in the supreme court, in a ruling which LGB Alliance intervened to achieve. So we can be absolutely clear that they advocate for the rights of those who are same-sex oriented, as defined in the UK Equality Act, and we do need to be able to discuss that clearly in some contexts, but we also need to avoid making any broad identity claims as to those terms beyond that.
@Gazumpedheit I would suggest restricting such statements to the specific context of the Equality Act when appropriate, and not giving the impression of making a more general claim that editors will definitely take issue with.
The fact that such language is one that many editors disagree with and would not use themselves - indeed, would generally lead to a ban if directed at another editor or a BLP - is why sticking to direct quotes was an acceptable solution in the past, ie rely neutrally on LGBA's own words.
This new change is rendering in wikivoice something that is essentially WP:RSOPINION from an overtly critical scholar which actually says they advocate for (cis)gender LGB people, with a footnote pointing out this bracketed (cis) is the author's personal addition, explicitly noting it is one LGBA would take issue with, while also conceding they advocate on the basis of same-sex orientation right at the start of the piece (meaning this is WP:CHERRYPICKING). Am aware most of the responses here seem fine with that, but for the record their charitable objects state the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. There's nothing here about "cisgender", or - in Equality Act terms - excluding those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
Copious other sources corroborate this, without any reference to "cisgender", eg:
  • link The LGB Alliance, a charity supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights
  • link "The ruling confirms that the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC (gender recognition certificate)," chief executive Kate Barker says.
  • link the LGB Alliance, which describes itself as promoting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men.
  • link LGB Alliance - has been formed partly in response to Stonewall's change of focus, by people who believe the interests of LGB people are being left behind. "It's fair to say that I didn't expect to have to fight for these rights again, the rights of people whose sexual orientation is towards people of the same sex," said co-founder Bev Jackson, who also co-founded the UK Gay Liberation Front in 1970.
  • link The LGB Alliance describes itself as a charity which “exists to provide support, advice, information and community to men and women who are same-sex attracted”,
  • link LGB Alliance says it was founded to stand up for the rights of same-sex attracted people.
  • link She also questioned why the BBC continued to ask Peter Tatchell, a trans activist, onto programmes when the LGBA is “not anti-trans people, we simply stand up for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights”.
  • link LGB Alliance, which was set up to represent gay, lesbian and bisexual people over the issue of gender identity
  • this Asked about the organisation’s creation, Jackson said organisers were in part motivated by a change in the definition of homosexuality adopted by Stonewall and other leading LGBT groups in around 2015 from same-sex attraction to same-gender attraction.
Etc etc. This is a completely unnecessary and inaccurate change that is not reflective of the balance of sources at all.
If you look at other charities (like, say, Mermaids) there is absolutely no problem simply lifting their aims and advocacy goals straight from their "about us" page, so the WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT justification for the original edit is invalid (since that essay is about avoiding vague platitudes or self-serving grandiose claims, and in any case isn't a policy), and it is odd to go to such lengths to avoid doing that with LGBA and instead rely on paraphrasing selective writings of critical scholars whose opinions happen to contradict dozens of other sources. Void if removed (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A characteristically cogent argument from Void if removed. He's correct on all points. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean almost all of these sources are attributing the claim to LGB alliance. I would also inherintly trust academics to accurately describe what LGB alliance do more than the British press, who would care little for details such as whether the LGB alliance actually advocates for trans people who aren't straight. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah… so this is what we call pov pushing? MOS:GENDERID, wikipedia considers trans women to be women regardless of what a tiny island in the Atlantic says. Snokalok (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an organisation in this ‘tiny island’. And MOS:GENDERID is irrelevant, because that applies only to talking about individuals. I agree with Void if removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we don't let the opinions of the Russian government dictate our articles on Russia Snokalok (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to Snokalok: I see that you have not answered either of my points. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A "tiny island" of 70 million people ... -- Alarics (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rewording for "Gender Identity" Section – WP:DUE and WP:IDENTITY Concerns

[edit]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to raise a concern regarding the current phrasing in the "Gender Identity" section that states:

“...homosexuality refers only to attraction to same-sex genitals between cisgender people.”

This phrase does not appear to be representative of the cited source (Helen Clarke, Journal of Gender Studies, 2024), which uses the term “same-sex attracted” 14 times, while using the phrase “same-sex genitals” only once. The repeated use of “same-sex attracted” and the near-absence of “same-sex genitals” suggests that the latter is not central to the paper’s framing of the LGB Alliance’s position.

According to WP:DUE, undue weight should not be given to marginal, satirical, and polemical framings, especially if those are not proportionally emphasized in the cited literature. Likewise, WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia not editorialize or reframe positions in a way that may appear biased.

Furthermore, per WP:IDENTITY, Wikipedia should use respectful and neutral language to describe how groups self-identify, and avoid phrasing that may come across as dehumanizing or politicized unless directly quoted and attributed.

The use of “same-sex genitals” exposes how such biologically essentialist language serves as a counterpoint to trans-affirming perspectives but also highlights a tension: while aiming to protect sexual orientation based on sex, it exposes how trans ideology’s redefinition can be perceived as erasing or invalidating gay identities. From this perspective, the phrase “same-sex genitals” is not a neutral descriptor but a term loaded with political and ideological implications that reflect ongoing conflicts between affirming transgender identities and respecting the boundaries of gay sexual orientation.

🔄 Suggested revision:

[edit]
I recommend revising the sentence to reflect a more neutral and proportionate summary of the group’s position:

“...the LGB Alliance argues that homosexuality refers to attraction to the same biological sex, rather than gender identity.”

This would align more closely with both the tone and content of the cited academic source, while avoiding potentially pejorative or stigmatizing language that risks misrepresenting the group’s position.

Let me know your thoughts. Happy to collaborate on wording here. Cajun Otter (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lopsided References

[edit]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: 

A review of the references cited in this article reveals that Pink News is cited 37 times out of a total of 147 references, making it the single most frequently referenced source at 25%. Pink News is known for its strong advocacy of transgender rights and frequently promotes perspectives aligned with trans ideology, while often expressing criticism toward organizations and viewpoints that emphasize gay rights as distinct from trans issues, such as the LGB Alliance. This significant reliance on a single source with a clear editorial stance raises concerns regarding the neutrality and balance of the article. To improve the article’s comprehensiveness and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, it would be advisable to incorporate a wider range of reputable sources that reflect the diversity of perspectives within the LGBTQ+ community and relevant academic discourse.

Cajun Otter (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex attracted

[edit]

I removed the link to same-sex attracted because the paragraph at that page doesn't seem useful, giving three different, indeed contradictory, uses of the term, but concentrating on its use within religious groups such as the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Alliance. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal; the link is inappropriate in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm sitting, this doesn't really seem incongruent. The LGB Alliance is based at 55 Tufton St, it's a conservative lobby group. If it uses terminology that reflects that, it is not our job as wikipedia editors to countermand or obfuscate that simply because we might not like it. Snokalok (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is absolutely common language, especially in legislation and research going back decades, and bears no relation to the linked section.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research_report_34_sexual_orientation_research_review.pdf
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2013/04/scottish-government-equality-outcomes-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-lgbt-evidence-review/documents/social-research-report-scottish-government-equality-outcomes-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-lgbt-evidence-review/social-research-report-scottish-government-equality-outcomes-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-lgbt-evidence-review/govscot%3Adocument/00420922.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a803a82e5274a2e8ab4eeec/LGB_Suicide_Prevention_Toolkit_FINAL.pdf
https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Guidelines%20and%20Literature%20Review%20for%20Psychologists%20Working%20Therapeutically%20with%20Sexual%20and%20Gender%20Minority%20Clients%20%282012%29.pdf
The equality act defines sexual orientation in terms of sex: same-sex, opposite-sex, both-sex oriented/attracted, both terms are used and the EHRC guidance says SSA. Trying to tie plain language to unrelated and highly-loaded sections of other articles is not NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest perhaps, adding this information to the article where it's wikilinked. The issue here is not that this article links to same-sex attracted, it's that same-sex attracted doesn't make sufficient mention of its usage in a British context. Snokalok (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rewrite it from the ground up and get rid of the obvious (false) impression that the only people that use it are catholic ex-gay conversion advocates. The clear target for "same-sex attraction" is not a newly added terminology section on religiously-motivated homophobic euphemisms, but Homosexuality (which is what the terminology relates to). Void if removed (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with that bit, but only to a very limited extent. It is clear that this is a much abused phrase. For normal people, who don't make a distinction between sex and gender except when actually necessary, "same-sex attracted" is an innocuous way to refer to all lesbian, gay, bi and pan people in one go, with no particular hidden meaning. It is also notably true that the same phrase has been aggressively abused by multiple groups, starting with religious groups and then picked up by secular organisations within the Anti-Gender Movement. The linked section could certainly be improved to acknowledge more clearly that the phrase is not intrinsically religious or sinister and that it is frequently used in good faith, although it is also often used in deceptive or obfuscatory ways by both religious and secular groups. (This may have started with a few Catholics but it isn't fair to blame Catholics for the whole thing.) That said, this is all rather off-topic here because when the LGB Alliance uses it they are seeking to redefine gay trans people as straight, thus cutting them off from protection from homophobia, and to redefine straight trans people as gay, thus exposing them to homophobia. This is much more akin to the misuses of the term made by the religious groups and makes us linking the term worthwhile even if what it links to could stand some improvement. If we have any RS which discuss the way in which the LGBA specifically uses the term then that would be well worth including in this article but my main suggestion here, and where I agree with Void, is to improve the section linked to. Of course, that should be discussed on Talk:Terminology of homosexuality rather than here. I think that is it necessary to keep the link because the term is ambiguous enough to merit linking to its explanation. If that explanation is improved then I think that will render any concerns here moot. DanielRigal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much everything DanielRigal said far more eloquently that I would have done. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the current version of the text at that link doesn't provide any information on what the LGB Alliance mean by that term that isn't already stated more clearly in the LGB Alliance article itself. I suppose it's conceivable that the link could be rewritten sufficiently to make it useful, in which case re-add it by all means, but until then it just muddies the waters by confusing the LGB Alliance meaning with other different or even contradictory meanings. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with @Jonathan A Jones, @Sweet6970 and @Void if removed. Letsdont (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaHasArrived: I don’t understand your reinstatement of the link for “same-sex attracted”. The first sentence of the linked section is “Same-sex attracted (SSA) became a phrase used by some religious groups in the late 20th century as part of the ex-gay movement. LGB Alliance has nothing to say about religion, and still less is it part of an ex-gay movement. So I am deleting the link. Sweet6970 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet6970 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally discussed at the target if you read the second sentence past the first one. Raladic (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you hover over the link, you only see the first sentence. A better link would be to the article Terminology of homosexuality itself. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC) Correction- if I hover over the link, I get the 1st sentence of the article, but if I click on the link, I get the misleading 1st sentence of the ’Same-sex attracted’ section. There is no need for a link at all, since the term is self-explanatory, but a link to the article is better than a link to the section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most users are on mobile web, so don't get hover previews in any case. Which sentence of an article information appears in isn't especially relevant to whether or not it should be linked to. For what it's worth, I've just inverted the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the section "Same-sex attracted" in Terminology of homosexuality, so that the use by different groups comes before the history. This includes bringing forward the sentence the LGB Alliance, a gender critical activist group, has used the phase to specify their transgender-exclusionary viewpoint (e.g. that trans women cannot be lesbians).
Given there is a section relating to the term, it makes sense to link to that section (until and unless the section becomes its own article, of course), per MOS:SECTIONLINKS: If an existing article has a section specifically about a topic, linking to that section takes the reader directly to the relevant information. That's why same-sex attracted is a redirect to a section in the first place.
And, while you personally might find the term to be self-explanatory, many users do not. What the LGB Alliance by "Same-sex attracted" is about sex-assigned-at-birth; whereas surveys have repeatedly shown that most LGB people are trans-inclusive, so linking to Homosexuality, as Void suggested above, would be misleadingly ambiguous.
This feels a little like some editors just don't like the content that is linked to. Surely the solution to that is to work on the content we're linking to, not to remove the link altogether. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&oldid=1303686849"