Category talk:LGBT individuals
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)
- 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)
- 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)