Category talk:LGBT individuals

This is the discussion page for Category:LGBT individuals. Here, you may discuss improving the article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Why?

Why does this page exist? LGBT is a term that wasn't around for most of the charaters so they couldn't indentify with it and it would be better if you do a category of just homosexual individuals and another on bisexual individuals, even one category on bisexual and homosexual individuals. Trangender individuals should be it's on category as sexual orientation is very different from gender identity and even though they share the same community today, I don't think we should project that on the historic characters.Abelzorus Prime (talk) 02:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

This is a touchy issue, and rightfully so. Some months back, the community was split on the issue, discussing their reasons for/against the category on the talk page. In March, a Forum poll was made and voted on, with the results leaning towards renaming the category. True, the poll is far from representative of all users, but (1) statistically, you can never collect all poll results, as we have many inactive / infrequent users, and (2) they are the Staff, they earned their Admin rights for a reason and wield their powers in a way they think is best for the wiki. Hope this helps. --Darman (talk) 04:25, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting the category

As showcased by Andrewh7 and XOdeyssusx's edits on various Odyssey individuals, this category needs to be at least discussed in a more suitable environment, if for nothing else than to lay down the 'rules' regarding this. This was further prompted by seeing Francesco75's reaction of Odey's talkpage. To quote the last: "-personally I think we need to rethink the LGBT category, as for me this concept is too contemporary, and have a political aspect. As an example, Leonardo was gay but I don't think he militated for the rights of gays in the Italian Renaissance."

As far as I'm concerned, this category is needed and appropriate. The individuals its applied to can be discussed, but they've been around since the beginning of, well, since there's been sex and gender. In Greek mythology, we've got the story of Caeneus, which might be argued to be among the first written transgender descriptions. (Fyi: he appears in Odyssey, in a mural) Though the term LGBT+ is relatively modern, its 'practice' is far from it. Though the term is considered 'political', the people it describes aren't. As Francesco75 said... Leonardo wasn't parading for rights for 'his kind'. But he was gay, and our article on him should reflect that, in categories as well, as much as the fact that he was an artist, an inventor, a polymath, and so forth. (It's a pity I was on a break when this was debated back in 2016.) Sadelyrate (siniath) 12:44, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

You dont have to fight for LGBT rights to be LGBT...the category should stay. Regarding the story of Caeneus, he might be trans. Pretty speculative imo. Individuals who are blatantly gay/bi like Leonardo or Alkibiades are definitely less speculative cases.V i l k a T h e W o l f (talk) 12:49, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

Just addressing the male characters that can be romanced as Alexios that Andrewh7 brought up, I think the way to go about them is to not categorize them in this page but in a BtS section on each of their pages note that they are still romance-able with the male protagonist but whether this sexuality is canon is unknown. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 13:10, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

As I say, I not against a category-specific for transgender individuals (Eric Cooper, Ned Wynert, Chevalier d'Eon) as its a description of what they are. But the problem I have with the category LGBT presupposes three things. 1: that all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender recognized themself as a part of the LGBT community, which aren't true today, some gays and lesbians don't go to the pride or aren't agree with the LGBT culture (flag and grammar). So if the concept didn't exist at this time period why we must consider they are a part of the community. 2: if we precise character sexuality, do we make a category for heterosexual? As we aren't in the mind of the characters or historical figures it seemed a bit separated the individuals in two groups LGBT vs no LGBT. And why don't make a category for women, men, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, etc. 3: It a bit anachronic. I give an example. Iltani and Wei Wu, do we considered them as Assassin because the Assassins considered them a like-minded or not. It not like giving a posthumous membership of an order to historical figures. The question is, did this people was conscious to be a member of this community or not. I'm open to the discussion.Francesco75 (talk) 13:46, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

It specifically says "LGBT individuals", not "LGBT Community members/individuals", there's a huge difference between the two. And it's not like the concept of being "LGBT" is a new thing, because LGBT ppl exist way before it this "LGBT" term is invented. I'm all for keeping the category. In regards to the religion categories and why not, I have no say in that. XOdeyssusx (talk) 13:56, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

To answer Francesco's second question, categories are created on the basis of need or if it is significant enough to have, not because there are other existing categories which falls under the same type. For example, just because we have categories on bankers and blacksmiths doesn't mean we have to have categories on every profession in existence. Nor is that because the list for professions is limitless; if we were to have category pages for Christians and Muslims, it doesn't mean we need to have category pages for Buddhists, Jainists, or every religious group as well. That would depend on if we have enough Buddhists and Jainists to merit those category pages, and if they're significant to have. Now, if there were Buddhists and Jainist characters, I think the category would automatically be significant enough, but as for a heterosexual category, though the majority of characters in Assassin's Creed are heterosexual, I don't think it is significant to highlight. Some criticisms of heteronormality may be had here, but that is my position. On a side-note, we probably should have category pages for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and the reason why we don't have category pages for males and females is because we don't think it's necessary.

So the question comes down to whether this category of LGBT individuals is significant enough to highlight. I understand that some past editors like Nesty were concerned about how it marks LGBT of as something especially different, hence going back to the aforementioned concerns of heteronormality that may come up. I have no easy answer to this, but I do think in terms of sheer convenience, this category is useful.

To address Francesco's first and last questions, I am uncertain myself whether LGBT refers more to the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. or if it refers to the contemporary community of this. I think visitors would have that confusion as well, but I don't think I am qualified to speak on this, so I would have to defer this to you guys.

All in all, I can only say that I lean towards keeping this category page, but if I had to vote on it, I would probably abstain. I would direct you guys to the past debates that the wiki has had on this which are linked in the section immediately above this. In particular, I think Nesty and Master Sima Yi made some great points debating each other. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:42, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

So, speaking as both an academic and a queer person, I have some comments to make. 1: Unless we prefer the term "queer", the academic term that functions as an umbrella for everyone not cis and heterosexual is LGBT or LGBT+, it does not presupose what Francesco said under their number 1, about the community . 2: The fact that the term is "new" or wasn't used during the character's time doesn't mean anything. Language evolves, and as I said LGBT(+) is shorthand for not cishet. An example of language evolving in a short time frame. "Transvestite" was the accept and preffered tem for trans people around the 60s-70s. We now tend to prefer Transgender. 3: Because heteronormativity is a thing, I personally believe the tag "heterosexual" to be redundant when we are talking about a piece of media. The entire argument of "marking as different" is incredibly valid, though it loses some effect when we discuss media that already does that.

I will read the older discussions and see if there's anything more I'd like to add, but my vote would be for keeping this category. - Soranin (talk) 00:47, June 13, 2020 (UTC) Soranin (talk) 00:50, June 13, 2020 (UTC)