Category talk:LGBT individuals

This is the discussion page for Category:LGBT individuals. Here, you may discuss improving the article. 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

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)

So there are a couple of things I want to add. It's basically a response to Nesty's first and fourth point. 1: A fix would be to make the category "LGBT+ individuals", thus including absolutely everyone not cishet without making the acronym too big to be unworkable. 4: This is a more complicated matter. Relevancy is subjective. For example, someone might absolutely not care about the difference between a scimitar and cutlass and we do have both those categories. That aside, (and getting a bit personal) representation is important in and of itself specially when discussing a group of people who are marginalized and basically have to scour media for the tiny number of characters that represent us. Keeping the LGBT+ characters from AC easy to find would not be a bad thing. - Soranin (talk) 01:26, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I can counter your arguments by saying we can consider Caesar as an Italian even if the concept doesn't exist at the time. The same thing for Charlemagne, he is French. The Second point, transvestite was a term to design someone who dresses in something else, so the definition evolves but it doesn't so far from the beginning. The third point, what is queer in society can be tolerated at another time or area. In classical Greece, bisexuality was common, and at the time of Leonardo, Florence tolerates homosexuality. It's relative. The fourth point, if we add the non-cishet in the category, do we add Elise Lafleur and Aveline as they don't follow the gender rules of their society?

I would prefer a transgender category as I say as its a factual description of what they are, maybe subcategorized it in LGBT.Francesco75 (talk) 06:17, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Francesco, I'm not sure what those first two statements is meant to counter, but yes, we might validly call all Romans Italians because it is kind of a misconception that the concept of Italy didn't exist during Roman Republic and Roman Empire. Also, as I have been explaining in Category talk:Greeks, some modern concepts (in the example of that discussion, nationality or sovereignty) can be applied retrospectively just because we conceptualize them differently now with different terms doesn't necessarily mean that the things we are describing didn't exist then.

Also you seem to be misunderstanding the definitions of queer and transgender. Queer in English originally meant "peculiar" or "strange" and can still be found used that way in older works. By extension, it came to refer pejoratively to homosexual people, but more recently, it seems like some LGBT activists have argued for adopting it while removing it of its negative connotations. I believe that is the way Soranin is using it.

Transgender doesn't simply refer to people who don't fit into societal gender roles and expectations. It refers to individuals who self-identity as the opposite gender from the sex that they were born. Many men and women in history and today don't conform to societal gender roles but still identify with their sex. It also doesn't cover homosexuals and bisexuals since transgenders are necessarily either, and if we have a category specific only to transgenders, then we would have to have separate and additional categories for homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:50, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I mean queer in its two definitions, what was strange today wasn't in the past. And the queer community is defined by regrouping all that isn't hetero-normative, but even the "norm" evolves through time. If you compare what defines being a "man" in Classical Greece, you must be a warrior, a citizen and a family man. In Victorian society, being a "man" significates be educated, being a gentleman and being elegant. Alkibiades and Oscar Wilde represented what was the "norm" of their society even if they're totally different from one and another. Also even if the two individuals were bi, they were the representant of what was "hetero-normative" in their societies.

For me, there is a difference between being gays, lesbians, bi, transgender and being LGBT. Harvey was gay, no doubt on that, but by his actions for the rights of the LGBT, he was a member of the community and he is a part of their story. I personally know some persons who don't recognize in the LGBT community even if they are gays. For me, its like for Grisier page when it was labeled as African just because he was black, which was nonsense as it would mean that all Africans are black and all the blacks are African. For me labeled all gays and lesbians as LGBT is the same thing.Francesco75 (talk) 08:41, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Mate, LGBT+ is literally an umbrella term. If you're gay, you're LGBT+. If you're trans, you're LGBT+. By definition. Also, that is not the definition of queer, heteronormativity doesn't go into it. Queer aggregates everyone not cis and heterosexual. If someone is cis and not straight, LGBT+. If someone is trans and straight, LGBT+. If someone is cis and straight, NOT LGBT+. Simple as that. The "feelings/tolerance" of when/where they lived doesn't factor into it at all. - Soranin (talk) 14:10, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

As barbaric was an umbrella term for not Greek. Define a group by what it isn't don't make a clear definition. As a historian, I considered that attributing to a historical figure concept that doesn't exist at the time as pure revisionism. It's like saying Hilter was for the vegan movement because he had a vegan diet. For me, LGBT had a cultural and political meaning, its own flag, music, districts and even its own state in Coral Sea Islands between 2004 and 2017. As the queer nationalism exist since the 70's, LGBT it more cultural and political identity.Francesco75 (talk) 16:43, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

How do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War? Sadelyrate (siniath) 16:50, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

And how do who know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?Francesco75 (talk) 16:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just dodging the question. Sadelyrate (siniath) 16:56, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

You too. But let say that I have a degree in History, and that even in the 70's, the T wasn't in the LGBT, it was only LGB.Francesco75 (talk) 17:00, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Let's also say that both trans and non-straight research was already being done by 1919, e. g. The Weimar Institute of Sex Research. Don't try and separate the letters, it's not a good look. - Soranin (talk) 17:04, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I don't say that research doesn't exist, I say that the revendication of being part of LGBT doesn't exist before it's official creation. Before Marx made the Capital, do you think the workers revendicated being from the proletariat and just were the proletariat? Marx was he a Marxist? Jesus was he a Christian? Taylor was he a Taylorist?Francesco75 (talk) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Refusing to help another build a straw man isn't avoidance. But back to the topic. In the 70's... as the, as you say, political movement. Newsflash: language evolves as needed. Words are born and then die as needed. Doesn't mean that the concept's new. Otherwise... no virii before the term 'virus' was coined. No 'autism' before 1908. But as far the concept of LGBT+... go read your books again. It keeps on popping up throughout human history, in all the languages, in all the cultures. Whether Two-Spirit, or māhū, or poikatyttö... or even 'confirmed bachelor'. Sadelyrate (siniath) 17:09, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like reduction to absurdity. You compare scientific phenomena and cultural phenomena, it isn't the same thing. And stay polite, I could that who need to make history studies before saying something but I'm polite and I let you speak.Francesco75 (talk) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

You simplify others' identity as a mere relatively modern politico-cultural thing, and then accuse of impoliteness when your opinion that the concept of it is 'new' is challenged? O.o Sadelyrate (siniath) 18:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I not simplify, I said that LGBT have more weight as a cultural concept than just a sexual preference, but I don't accuse you to be uneducated because you don't agree with me. Be polite, assume good faith, do not insult other people. For a moderator, I think you know the rules better.Francesco75 (talk) 19:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Francesco, the contention you and the others seem to have is that whereas you hold that LGBT+ is defined as a movement or community, the others are telling you that it is defined by the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. It is that simple. They think that if an individual was homosexual in ancient Greece, then they are LGBT+ because that is how they say it is defined. It is not because they think that they should impose the identity of a contemporary gay rights movement onto ancient peoples who may or may not have had a sense of solidarity with or been an activist with this movement. You guys were merely arguing semantics, not the philosophy of historical relativism, and frankly, I'm disappointed at this failure to recognize that the matter being debated was so simple.

The rhetorical "how do we know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?" used as a comeback was also entirely absurd, and I think it is at that point that the whole discussion was derailed because I believe Sadel's "how do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist then" was intended as an honest question. The concept of nuclear war certainly didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War because that concept depends on the existence of nuclear weapons, which didn't exist then. But homosexuality did exist in those days. The two don't compare at all. You guys really could have navigated this better, but I would be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge I've had my fair share of heated debates on the wiki, and I don't think anyone here crossed the line. It's just that one rhetorical question out of left field which really wasn't constructive that bothers me a little.

In any case, back to semantics, I am not informed enough on this topic to speak on how LGBT+ is defined, so I am inclined to trust Sora and others who are acquainted with LGBT+ movement. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:37, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that my example on Nuclear War was a bit strong but it proved the point. Did it exist at the time? Yes for homosexuality, not for LGBT in Classical Greece. It's like the discussion if Sokrates was Greek or not in the modern sense. He was a Hellens but before all an Athenian. As I already said, I totally agree with a transgender category as it's a factual description, as being a silversmith, a British, or an Assassin. For me, if the characters or historical figures haven't the conscious to be a part of the LGBT, they aren't. But I follow the Vox Populi on this case for now.Francesco75 (talk) 21:01, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Francesco, you're still not understanding that the argument being made is that if an individual is homosexual, they are automatically LGBT because, as Sora and Odey argued, the word LGBT doesn't refer to being conscious of the community but the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, etc. To further the discussion with them, you have to be able to acknowledge that argument that they're making. Because if you guys don't have a common understanding of how LGBT is defined, then all the points you keep making are moot. I am going to refer you to a extended explanation below also about how retrospectively using modern words to describe past phenomenon isn't always incorrect. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:46, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

The acknowledgement of identities of individuals of minority groups is not in any way is relevant to the connections their own identities might or might not have to political movements regardless of when/if those movements exist(ed), because being is only political if made a political controversy. A better comparison is Native American identities and their contemporary movements, what identities they themselves have within the umbrella term Native American is what defines what they are regardless of what any political movement fights for. Therefor any discussion that conflates political movements with the existence of minority identities isn't as much a debate about identities as it is a semantic debate build on historical assumptions surrounding these identities. And as someone within the community and politically active, I agree with the name change of the category as well.--ACsenior (talk) 21:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

So that is Francesco75's vote against the category versus  Sadelyrate, VilkaTheWolf, Odeyssus and my vote for the category and Sol abstains. - Soranin (talk) 17:27, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).Francesco75 (talk) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

On historical relativism

As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.

I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word scimitar is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian khopesh, the Persian shamshir, the Indian talwar, to the Turkish kilij. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means saber in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word scimitar describes do exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of scimitar invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.

If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether sovereignty existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that sovereignty is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.

I have disagreed with this all my life. I disagree because I think that even if people in ancient times did not have an exact word for sovereignty (this in and of itself is debatable), there were plenty of states which had defined borders, had no greater authority above them, and recognized one another as equals, e.g. Tang China and Sasanian Persia. I disagree because I also do not think that the distinction between states being subject to arbitrary conquest in pre-modern times and states not being as subject to arbitrary conquest in modern times because of the international recognition of sovereign status is significant. Countries now, as then, can and have invaded other countries to subjugate them, as we saw in World War II, as we saw in the Indochina Wars, as we saw in the Persian Gulf Wars.

The question that I, in the field of political science, has constantly had to contend with is whether sovereignty can be retrospectively applied to pre-modern countries. If the people then didn't have this exact concept of sovereignty as defined through international consensus, were there sovereign states? Or can it be that there were sovereign states who just didn't think to use the word sovereignty to define themselves or to promote a category of sovereignty in international affairs?

If this seems all off-topic, I admit it is rather an extreme tangent. But it is the same question we run into where Francesco argues that LGBT+ cannot be applied to historical homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people, etc. If we were to define the LGBT+ as a movement only, then that point may be valid. But if we were to define it as just the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. then it can be applied retrospectively. The phenomenon or subjects that the modern term describes existed in that era even if they didn't use that word. And of course they would not have, because they did not speak English.

That is the same issue with people who argue that Greek people prior to the Macedonian Empire would not have seen themselves as Greek and that Greece didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War—as has been argued once before on this wiki. The Greeks didn't use the name Greek because that is English. They called themselves Hellenes which is essentially Greek for Greek, and even if they thought their loyalties lay with their city-states not the Greek civilization as one hypothetical nation, this does not mean they had no concept of Greece, as a world of the Greeks. That Greece was conceptualized differently in the past, as a common cultural civilization with many Greek states, rather than as one nation doesn't mean that Greece didn't exist.

Applying new or outside terminology to phenomenon when they were known under different names or conceptualized in a different way isn't non-factual. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:46, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Name change?

Could we vote on whether we as a wiki should rename this category from "LGBT individuals" to "LGBT+ individuals"? I vote for the change. - Soranin (talk) 17:32, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadelyrate (siniath) 18:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?Francesco75 (talk) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--ACsenior (talk) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."V i l k a T h e W o l f (talk) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

In the essence of equal representation I've skimmed through some umbrella terms such as MSGI, GSM/SGM, GSRM, GSD, MOGII, and MOGAI because there could be an argument that while LGBT+ is more inclusive to those that fall outside the umbrella of just LGBT such as intersex or asexual it could still be seen as marginalizing them as they don't get their own initial in the anagram. However those other umbrella terms while being more inclusive without using specific labels do not see wide usage and would most likely confuse readers but I still bring them to the discussion as possible options. As an aside we technically do have intersex mythology figures mentioned without being explicitly stated such as Hapi. Phanes would be another but as an Isu I am uncertain of how to go about that unless explicitly stated which it isn't. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:23, June 14, 2020 (UTC)