Talk:Queer

"Queer is an umbrella term" or "queer is sometimes used an umbrella term"?

@Sideswipe9th

Hey homie, The only mentions of queer as an umbrella term in the body is under the criticism section- "Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term." The only other mention of the phrase "umbrella term" is in reference to the usage of the term gay as an umbrella term. In accordance with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I propose we change "queer is an umbrella term" to "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term", as the body only disputes the notion that queer is a universally accepted umbrella term.

Note the google scholar search for "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term" comes up with several pages of results demonstrating academic literature employing that exact phrasing. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22queer+is+sometimes+used+as+an+umbrella%22+&btnG= Tdmurlock (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I could have sworn we had content about it being an umbrella term in the article body. It's use as an umbrella term is decidedly uncontroversial, see Human Rights Campaign, UK National Archives, University of Florida, a 2019 research paper in Sexuality & Culture, Britannica.

To be honest, I'd maybe take a closer look at what's been written in the criticism section. Generally speaking we avoid criticism sections in articles, because they tend to be a nightmare to keep complaint with WP:NPOV. On the one hand I'd maybe look at more naturally weaving that content into other relevant sections. However, a large part of it, including the content that you're relying on (ie Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term... is wholly unsourced. It seems that content was added back in May 2019 as part of a series of rewrites to avoid a different type of WP:CSECTION, though even then it wasn't sourced and the content it was re-phrasing was very poorly sourced to a site that we don't consider reliable.

Overall I think a re-write of that section, based on actually reliable sources, along with properly integrating the rest of the negative content into other relevant sections per CSECTION is in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty ignorant to pretend that the Q-slur is "decidedly uncontroversial", when dictionaries (including our own) as well as multiple style guides including those written by LGBT organizations say that it is still pejorative and should be approached carefully. Why would they need to specify any of it if it were "decidedly uncontroversial"?

The term q***r to refer to non-cishet people has spread since the 1990s—reaffirming if used as a self-identifier among q***r people but extremely offensive if used against them.
[...]
For some in the LGBT community, q***r is still offensive because some people still use q***r as an anti-gay or anti-trans slur. For an example of how q***r gets used in a derogatory sense (illustrating why using q***r as a slur is so hurtful), look no further than the schoolyard game Smear the Q***r, a variation of dodgeball where one student is the q***r who gets “stoned” with balls. --Dictionary.com word summary, emphasis mine

Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context. --MW

q***r: Originally a pejorative term for gay, now reclaimed by some LGBTQ+ people. Use with caution; still extremely offensive when used as an epithet and still offensive to many LGBTQ+ people regardless of intent. --the Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists, emphasis mine

Q***r: A term used by some LGBTQ+ people to describe themselves and/or their community. [...] Traditionally a negative or pejorative term for people who are LGBTQ+, some people within the community dislike the term. Due to its varying meanings, use this word only when self-identifying or quoting an individual who self-identifies as q***r (i.e., “My cousin identifies as q***r” or “My cousin is a q***r person”). -- PFLAG National

JapanYoshi [Talk] 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I recognize this can be a difficult topic, which makes it all the more important to uphold a high standard of WP:Civility; please don't call other editors ignorant. In the context of the above discussion, I don't think Sideswipe's comment was intended to imply use of queer was without detractors, but rather that its widespread use as a reclaimed umbrella term isn't factually in doubt.--Trystan (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That's my read as well, and I second Trystan's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a neutrality dispute and weasel words to this article. First of all, queer IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED UMBRELLA TERM. The opening paragraph is also seething with judgment for those that do not identify as "queer," referring to them as "assimilationist." A neutral POV does not use a weasel word to describe the intentions of a category of people. Heliostellar (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

Queer is not an umbrella term used to identify all members of the LGBTQ community.Queer is a term used to describe those individuals who identify as queer. 2600:1700:6560:1D70:B8A1:3607:494:C78 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And/or in short description

While MOS:ANDOR is a good general rule, there are times when or is not entirely clear (and the MOS article notes such exceptions exist). The existing wording seems like it could be misread as People who are neither heterosexual nor cisgender rather than People who are either not heterosexual or are not cisgender (or are neither). It could also be misread as People who are not heterosexual, or people who are cisgender, since it lacks parallelism on the other side of the or. The simplest and least confusing version to me would be People who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Would this be too fussy? Lewisguile (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)