Category talk:LGBT

This is the discussion page for Category:LGBT. Though the main page has since been deleted, this talkpage remains for archival purposes. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
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

Vote

Hello, all, please vote in this forum on whether we should keep this category, rename it, or remove it. DarkFeather ^{Raven's Nest}_{Raven's Hunt} 18:29, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Let's close this poll in 24 hours. Please make sure that your vote is in. DarkFeather ^{Raven's Nest}_{Raven's Hunt} 16:43, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Necessary?

Haven't there been discussions in the past about not using this kind of category? And even if we do decide to use it, I find "LGBT" by itself to sound rather weird. Wouldn't "LGBT people" or "LGBT individuals" be better? Crook ^{The Constantine District} 23:49, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Brought it up once privately, and that was years ago, before our bi protagonist or the hullaballo over the inclusion of Ned. --Alientraveller (talk) 00:00, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I still think this is an iffy choice. And don't get me started on bisexual Jacob. Such poor representation. If they were going to have a bi protagonist, they should've full on went for it, rather than barely hinting at it in the game, having the writer (who referred to Ned as a "transsexual") and the actor tiptoe around the term; eventually a social media account outright says it :/ I mean, I'm all for him being bisexual, but lord, they could've handled that so much better.

Anyways, still think we don't really need these category, but maybe that's just me. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 00:06, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. I am not in favour of this category, for a variety of reasons, which I will list below. They are not all equally strong, and not very eloquently worded, probably, but it is one a.m. right now, so bite me. (Don't.)

First of all, and let's start with the weakest reason, is that the category name, while broadly accepted, is incomplete. It leaves out entire groups of sexuality - such as pan-sexuality and demi-sexuality, just to name a few. I realize this is a minor thing, and easily amended at that, but the 'proper' acronym would get crazy complicated, so I don't really want to get into those muddy waters.

Secondly, this category is going to be this big thing that people are going to be fussing over all the time because sexuality is, and always will be, a hot topic. There will be people in favour, people not in favour, vandals who will think it is funny to disrespect certain sexuality-categories or think adding it to every character out there (and probably some buildings, events, memories and what have you to boot) is a good way to spend your time.

Thirdly, labels. It's really easy to just label individuals as being gay, or bi-sexual, or lesbian, or what have you. But labels are really nice, simple, nifty things, which is why people like them so much. Problem is, sexuality is not a simple thing, and labels can be a pretty confining, damning, confronting, troubling presence for all kinds of people. Lots of people don't like being categorized and put in a neat little box that tells them what they are. And that is something that we should respect. Now, I get that we are talking about fictional characters here, and they don't really have feelings. Despite that, my point still stands.

Fourthly, relevancy. Is it really relevant that someone feels attracted to someone of their own gender? Does it define them as a person? I think not. We also don't categorize people by the colour of their skin, their gender, their personal-style choices (e.g. gothic). I think this is one of those categories that we can easily do without, because sexuality does not define who we are, in the way that, for example, a profession or allegiance does.

Fifthly, we're a Wikia. A community-driven project. We discourage discussing politics and religion on here. In my mind, sexuality is a good fit with those two. While I do not want to shut sexuality away as something to be hidden, kept secret and denied, in any possible way I do not think that Assassin's Creed Wikia is the place for debates like these to arise. If it's not pertinent to the subject material (and point four established it isn't, in my humble opinion), we should not indulge in it.

There. I think I ran out of reasons now, though I do not doubt that, four minutes after publishing this, I will probably think of stuff I wanted to type but forgot... Amnestyyy (Contact me!) <helper /> 00:11, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Amnestyyy on all points here, particularly the fourth one. -- Zero-ELEC (talk) 01:04, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

You gave some excellent points, though I though I feel many would respond person's sexuality does define who they are as a result of the impact it has had on their life experiences. I do think it is a shame that apparently Wikia discourages discussing politics and religion given those are huge elements of AC, as are racism, sex and sexuality. I for one would love to categorize characters by religion, but that's evidently a topic for another day. --Alientraveller (talk) 15:48, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I am indifferent to the category although I did add Achilles because along with Patroclus, he is an example of ancient Greek yaoi but even that is somewhat dubious, heck even Leonardo is a mystery to us. Regarding religion, that can be also somewhat hard to discern. Rodrigo is Pope, but he outright admits he doesn't believe in Catholic teachings. I was surprised that some of these people are LGBT like Keynes, had no idea he's bisexual so I learned some new things by visiting the category. Killuminator (talk) 15:53, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I want to give my two cents here. I'm neither opposed or in favor of the category. I agree with most of Nesty's points and Alientraveller's. Placing these characters in a category does imply these characters to be "different", but I personally don't feel like it's more a 'label' than plenty of other categories. I also wouldn't equate listing a character's sexuality (most of these characters already have it mentioned in their respective articles, so not wanting to compile them into a category seems a bit of a double standard) to a discussion of politics and religion since in most cases it's just factual and not open to discussion. I would also make a case for Wikipedia doing the same thing in its category system, and giving readers easier access to this kind of information shows the writers' progressiveness in this field. However, it doesn't do much in the way of pointing out these characters are "different" which shouldn't be the case. If we're to keep this category though, it should definitely be changed to something more acceptable like "LGBT individuals". -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 19:59, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here to say that LGBT individuals is a group of people no different than nationality and we do categorize people by nationality. Religion itself hasn't been a major theme in the games or the canon (despite the assassination of a Pope), but nationality has. With Leonardo's DLC for ACB, characters like Ned Wynert, and the cross-dressing swordsman in Unity, it has been a small theme that these characters do exists and it does actually impact their categorization. I don't feel that this is isolating or discriminating against these characters -- it is simply categorizing them by statements they themselves have made, especially in Leonardo's case. DarkFeather ^{Raven's Nest}_{Raven's Hunt} 17:14, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

The category is relevant in the sense that this is a pop culture encyclopedia and people do search, for example, for gay characters. The category might have been useful when sites were saying Ned Wynert was the first transgender character in Assassin's Creed when Eric Cooper could have more easily popped up in search engines. The thing against, maybe, is how awkward it would be to populate the category with regards to fictionalised real people or sourcing. I suppose another argument is that this category is better filled or deleted rather than go another month with nothing in it. ;) Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 17:03, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this whole thing and think there is a use for this category - my only quibble is with the name really. I'd prefer something like "LGBT individuals" as Sima said. By the way, should we keep it as "LGBT" (which is the more well-known variation, I suppose) or expand it "LGBTQA+"? If we do stick with just LGBT, I'd at least want to modify the description to more inclusive of other sexualities.

(I don't really agree with ZEANCS just deleting the category from every article without further discussion btw :/) Crook ^{The Constantine District} 17:40, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to agree it shouldn't disappear randomly. I feel like this is a good item for a vote. Do I have a second? DarkFeather ^{Raven's Nest}_{Raven's Hunt} 17:46, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go for it - I had a think and figured something like "People that identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender or other sexualities" could work as a description if we're going with "LGBT individuals". Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:11, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

The name isn't a problem, it's far longer. LGBTQIAPK+ Or LGBTTTQQIAA+ + = all the bellow + Pansexual + Agender + Gender Queer + Bigender + Gender Variant + Pangender

So the only label that's missing is straight, other than that it covers all others. Don't mind if we keep it but the name wouldn't be a problem. --ACsenior (talk) 21:17, March 29, 2016 (UTC)