Talk:Gay rights timeline

Contents

1 Template 2 Discussion 2.1 Intended content 2.2 Gay Games 2.3 Queer rights 2.4 Rock Hudson 2.5 Content (moved from talk:2004 in gay rights) 2.6 LBGT vs. "gay" (moved from talk:2004 in gay rights) 3 Say what?? 4 Rights and POV

Template

Below is an optional template to be used in various years in gay rights - for a working example, see: 2004 in gay rights. (Cut and paste fom below this line)

---

''See also:'' [[xxxx in gay rights]], [[xxxx|other events of xxxx]], [[xxxx in gay rights]] and the [[gay rights timeline]].

==Events==

===January===

===February===

==Births==

==Deaths==

==External links==
* [http://www.advocate.com Web site for Advocate news magazine]
* [http://www.365gay.com 365gay.com]
* [http://news.google.com/news?as_q=&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=gay+lesbian+bisexual+transgender+homosexual&as_eq=&as_nsrc=&as_nloc=&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_minm=1&as_mind=20&as_maxm=2&as_maxd=19 Google search for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender news]
*[http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/information_bank/index.html Stonewall's information bank]

Please don't include generic links like these in the External Links sections of multiple pages. It is close to link-spam, and not helpful to the encyclopedia. Limit yourself to adding these to one or two related pages (perhaps gay culture), or pages which contain content found on those sites. +sj+

Discussion

Intended content

What content should be added to this page and the X in gay rights pages?
Is it only about the history of gay rights in the USA (as the current, very limited content seems to suggest)? Will it be a list of all the SSM and SSM in X news headers from the current events pages? Or is anything related to gay rights from around the world legitimate? (if these questions have already been discussed somewhere, just point me to that) -- Kimiko 10:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is meant to be a way to mark timelines and be a directory of significant events in global LGBT events throughout history. It is NOT intended to be a U.S.-only list. Please feel free to add events. I will add a proposed template for missing years so that it can be copied. Davodd 20:50, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the info. For events that happened in many countries (decriminalization of homosexuality, opening of marriage to same-sex couples, etc.), should we list only the first country, or all of them? -- Kimiko 10:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be only 1 or 2 biggest events of the year, then people can go to the main article by clicking the year. Davodd 12:34, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the year pages, not the list, but I understand what you mean. What about 2003? How to decide what the biggest events were? The striking down of US sodomy laws? SSM in Belgium? SSM in Canada? Section 28 in the UK? SSM in Massachusetts? The latter didn't become really big until February 2004 it seems. Neither section 28 or SSM in Belgium received much attention abroad I think. For 2004, SSM in US debated seems a good headline for now. -- Kimiko 14:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The repeal of section 28 was massive in the UK. As a lot of readers come from the UK it needs to be listed on one of the years. Secretlondon 14:53, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Gay Games

re: Gay Games. Is this really relevant? It seems a bit trivial compared to everything else. Secretlondon 15:17, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Also, they aren't really about Rights, which is the topic of this list. I vote for removal of the gay games entries, except maybe the first one. Oh well, they don't really bother me on the subpages either. But they have to go from the list as 'important events'. -- Kimiko 15:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The First Gay Games, though, did have to do with rights. They were originally to be called the Gay Olympics, but the name had to be changed when the IOC sued Tom Waddell, the organizer. Some people claim this was just trademark protection, most gay folk see it as motivated by homophobia. I agree that the subsequent games are clearly less important, -- Outerlimits

Queer rights

There is a problem in calling these pages "gay rights" as it does not fully recognize bisexual people, and while the inclusion of news related to transgender people (while important and valuable), but under "gay rights" it casts unintentional POV in that it insinuates that transsexual men and women are merely "gay"... I already brought up this point at Talk:2004 in gay rights, with some preliminary discussion for a name change. Thanks Dysprosia 23:21, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That discussion was moved by User:Davodd, see below. -- Kimiko 09:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rock Hudson

Why is Rock Hudson's death listed (1985 in gay rights)? His death may have brought attention to HIV/AIDS, but that is not a Rights issue (what these pages are about), not even exclusively gay-related. And Rock himself didn't do much for Gay Rights either as he was in the closet for most of his life. -- Kimiko 22:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added it. It should definitely stay in the 1985 article. But, I also favor replacing the 1985 refernce with something more substantial on this page when it is found. Davodd 03:26, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain why it should stay? I'm not saying I insist on removing it, but I think it's a good idea to figure out what belongs or doesn't belong on these pages. Do you think anything gay (or LGBT, see below) related could be placed here, or only "gay (or queer) rights" events? -- Kimiko 09:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the death of any prominent gay or lesbian person should be considered for inclusion in the Deaths section of the "Year in..." articles. But there is a special case with Hudson, his forced coming out as a gay man made him the first gay major Hollywood movie star. The American cultural impact of his surprise outing is still referenced in news reports on gay rights issues -- issues that are not related to AIDS. For examples: Click here for a list of the most recent articles (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rock-hudson+gay&sa=N&tab=wn). That aside, for this specific page, I do support removing the refence of Hudson;s death next to the 1985 year once we find another notable event. -- Davodd 09:58, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

So it was really his coming-out that was important for gay rights, not his death from AIDS? (BTW, only two of those reports referred to his sexuality specifically, the others just happened to mention "gay" and "Rock Hudson" in the same text). In that case, listing his coming-out would be more appropriate. Again, I'm not against listing his death per se, I'm just saying that if we're going to list all gay celebrities, we're A) just duplicating the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and B) cluttering this timeline into being a lot less useful. -- Kimiko 10:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will go along with group consensus on this matter. Davodd 18:39, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Content (moved from talk:2004 in gay rights)

This is a great idea. Is the "deaths" section supposed to include only prominent people, or can it include otherwise unsung victims of gay-bashing? - Montréalais 07:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking only prominent people, with the notable exceptions of high-profile bashings or hate crimes (Matthew Shepard's bashing, Harvey Milk's assassination, etc.). It'd keep us in line with the main year-article standards. - Jim Redmond 23:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LBGT vs. "gay" (moved from talk:2004 in gay rights)

** Miss Universe pageant officials in New York City remove transgender contestant Chen Lili from China's Sichuan province despite her getting approval from China officials. [1] (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022704tsUniverse.htm) The recently added link/new entry is a useful one to mention, but under gay rights it casts unintentional POV in that are we saying that transsexual women are merely "gay"? Unless Chen Li is in fact a lesbian the entry should probably be moved somewhere else ;) Dysprosia 05:33, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the inclusion, was thinking LGBT rights issues were gay rights issues. Will go with majority opinion on this. Davodd 06:18, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, but the title doesn't suggest it ("gay" really only suggests homosexual). Perhaps the article needs to be moved. Dysprosia 06:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this argument suggest we also move the gay rights article? As well as the inclusion of Gwen Araujo in the gay bashing/Persecution of homosexuals article, which also would be in question. Davodd 06:29, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Gah! Something needs to be done about that! Hang on Dysprosia 06:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "gay rights" is most common, but it's inaccurate also. The term "queer" is rather useful, but some don't like this, so we can't easily use it. Dysprosia 06:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the problem with acronyms is then you gotta define them... Pakaran. 06:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As an example of common use of "LGBT" in particular, my school has an LGBTSA (L/B/G/T student association) Pakaran. 06:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess gay rights is different from GLBT rights: The gay rights movement seeks acceptance for homosexuality and homosexual persons., which suggests bisexuals and transsexuals are not included. therefore, we just simply need to mention the rights movement for homosexuals. otherwise, we have to redefine what gay rights is to include bisexual and transsexual. (but i don't know what that exactly means among English speakers) --Yacht 00:21, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that if you redefine "gay rights" to include bisexuals and transgendered people, the word "gay" to describe the movement is inaccurate. Issues relating to transgendered people were added to the gay rights timeline articles, which is great, but transgendered people aren't intrinsically gay - do you see the problem? The term "gay rights" needs to be made more inclusive to be more accurate, if we are to include issues relating to transgendered or bisexual people, which we should. Dysprosia 01:12, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I meant "we just simply need to mention the rights movement for homosexuals." others added to, like, GLBT rights or transgendered rights. but i doubt if there are such expressions. --Yacht 02:42, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you just want to put gay-related issues only here? (Sorry, I can be slow sometimes ;) If so, where else are we to put bisexual/transgendered issues in the news? Dysprosia 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, most people I know consider "gay rights" issues to include bisexual and transgender issues since they are so inter-linked in facing the same homophobia. Of the two, I think the biggest hurdle is inclusion of transgender issues here since by definition most of these people self-identify as heterosexual. But in gay rights circles, transgendered folk are usually considered part of the overall gay community - at least where I have lived in the Midwest and California. As for bisexual. I'm not sure if there is enough distiction between bisexual and gay/lesbian issues that would warrant a separate article. In fact I think there is more of a distinction between gay male vs. lesbian rights than bisexual vs. homosexual rights. ;-) For now, I think we should put B and T news here -- but sub-categorize them -- like:

• February 31
  • Transgender rights:
    • Kentucky becomes the first state to extend protection from employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Perhaps that will be a useful compromise. Dysprosia 08:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that, for now, including T* and bi rights events in the list seems a good solution. I think that fact should be mentioned on the gay rights timeline page. Queer rights would be more descriptive, but gay rights is definitely the most used term. -- Kimiko 22:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PS. I think it would be worthwhile to move this discussion (and the one at the top too BTW) to Talk:Gay rights timeline.

(so moved) Davodd 03:22, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Say what??

Um, what on earth has happened here? Since when is history of homosexuality the same as gay rights or gay rights timeline? Exploding Boy 09:59, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. This timeline is confused in so many, many ways. Few of the births/deaths I've seen listed have been relevant to gay rights -- though Turing's death via cyanide and infamous deaths via gay-bashing are exceptions; many of the entries (like the origins of the word "homosexuality") could conceivably be related, but the relationship isn't mentioned in those blurbs; what should be a single timeline article with perhaps separate decade-articles for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s is a mess of sparsely-populated year-articles... contributors seem obsessed with men, and rarely mention women (etymologies for four words are given, for instance, all applicable to men)

And I was really miffed to find the outcome of the 1907 Prince von Bülow v. Brand libel case misstated -- it was not the Prince who was sentenced to 18 months in prison! +sj+ 07:24, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real confusion in this listing of events between social and political movements of the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries based on sexuality as identity and a history of same-sex sexuality before about 1860 when it was not an issue of social identity, but one of behavior. It would be helpful to more clearly differentiate the two. The overall title of the section gives an ahistorical impression that there was a 'gay rights' movement long before the social identity that underpins it even existed. --Buzz Harris, writer, researcher, & former staffperson at NGLTF and GLAD in the U.S.

Rights and POV

Reference (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rights) I have a curiosity and this might not be the place but... Does the word "rights" carry a POV? Most people would not argue the view of humans have a general right to life (even death penalty is only in "extreme" conditions). More would argue (at least in the US) that civil rights for all races are objectionable. Therefore they are not the "rights" of the people. The same goes for suffrage for both genders. Today we are continually the civil rights movement and many would argue that gay rights are a continuation and therefore should be accepted as such. This as we can see by the news stories is hotly debated. Is it the "right" of gays to marry or is it government overstepping its right if this is allowed? Using the term gay rights is very one sided and implies that they do have the inherent right to this is it not? When we step into the future pedophile rights or child lover rights might be the issue as a contination of the civil rights movement and sexual revolultion: allowing consenting children to participate in sex with adults. With human views seemingly gravitating to the acceptance of casual sex this does not seem so outlandish to me, however, starting a timeline and calling Lindsay Ashford the head of pedophile rights at this point in time might be frowned upon. This then follows (as I see it) that we should be able to create a timeline of white rights based on the KKK and show the progress (and then loss thereof) of "white rights" or whatever you would like to call it. My point is that the word rights heavily reflects views prevalent in our time which is a very chronocentric point of view. I am, of course, not thinking that any of these title will change, they are so far ingrained that we know these movement by such point of view terms. I am just curious to user opinions on this issue. Thanks gren 07:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. It is not POV to use the term most common in usage. The rest of your argument is conjecture and at best is a moot argument since it is more in the realm of rhetoric than fact-based observation. As words evolve, so will Wikipedia, but for now, the most common usage for the legal struggles of the LGBT communities is "gay rights." - DAVODD 09:57, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

My point was that the most common term in usage carried a POV therefore Wikipedia could not be expected to use anything but it because of its prevalence, however it still has a POV. Civil/gay/etc legal rights would not carrying as that POV in the same way. I also think it surpasses the realm of conjecture because every group gaining rights in the last century or so have called their movement the XXX rights movement, so to presume that the next group, following the trend, after gay rights would use the terms seems rather logical. I am sorry, it is quite difficult for me to make fact-based observations about the future as it has not come to pass as of now. I do think it is an interesting question and not merely one to be dismissed, it has no place in changing the policies of WikiPedia however it is a pejorative term, used to belittle the argument of the other side gren 20:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to stay focused on this article - but didn't realise you were talking concepts that reach beyond here. I am sorry if you thought I was belittling you. Maybe the correct forum for this - since it is a "big picture" question - is the Wikipedia:Village pump -- where more people would be exposed to your inquiry. DAVODD 09:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)