Forum:Category:Non-heterosexual real world people

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Category:Non-heterosexual real world people

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Opening Post

Alright. So I would have preferred for User:JDPManjoume to have written this one up, as it's his baby, but it was pretty far up the docket when we were closing up the temporary forums and the reason there was no ruling on the talk page is because of the proposed forum thread. It's time for me to write an opening post where we can discuss this.

The issue began in July of 2021 when JDPM stated he was interested in creating OOU categories for real world non-het, non-cis people, as well as IU and OOU categories for PoCs on the list. As best I can tell, User:Epsilon the Eternal then created the categories Category:Non-heterosexual real world people and Category:Non-cisgender real world people in December of 2021. JPDM then brings up concerns about citations a month later, saying that everything should be rigorously sourced, and he was concerned that some of the pages were perhaps not quite as solidly sourced as he thought they should be.

This comment, however, prompted User:RadMatter (no longer with us) to respond, insisting that the category simply isn't needed.

Why must we divide people due to their sexuality or gender identity?

Now, I maintain that this comment is in express violation of T:BOUND, as this specific reasoning was litigated extensively in the thread that established the existence of in-universe categories for the groups in question - with the reasoning found to be unconvincing. See specifically Thread:271132 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV for this discussion. (As much as I'm embarrassed by my comments there as a new user on the site.) The closing post for this has been lost, but Jack and DiS's arguments were not found to be convincing and these categories were created. With that said, RadMatter's comment here generated quite a lot of discussion. For those who wish to read the entire conversation, you may do so at Category talk:Non-heterosexual individuals. However, I will summarize the discussion, as I understand it, for the purposes of this thread.

Arguments in favor

1. These categories are useful for research. Those who are looking into subjects such as these will find them tremendously helpful to have all of the information in one place.
2. These categories are helpful because they serve to highlight all the people who are part of minority groups, show that they're an integral part of the history of Doctor Who, and for those who are members of these groups and feel isolated, they can feel more connected through this.
3. Noting that certain writers, for instance, are members of a minority group can influence how you read their work and provide important context for understanding the perspective they're approaching subjects from. For example, Patrick Ness, Juno Dawson, or Paul Magrs.

Arguments against

1. While it's true that those conducting academic research might be interested in using these categories, so too will people researching minority groups in order to harm them. There's a very real possibility for abuse here, and we can't control what people do with the information being gathered.
   1. More specifically, people in some of these marginalized groups have expressed their hesitations in these categories existing for this reason, and that should be enough motivation for us to remove the category.
2. We shouldn't divide people based on categories like gender identity or race or what have you, it makes these minority statuses seem like they're not "the norm".
3. Categories have second class status to articles on this wiki anyhow. If a category is causing problems, the simplest thing to do is delete it and work on making the articles in question better.
4. These categories will always be incomplete, given how many people have contributed to the franchise over the past 60 years.
5. If we place someone into these categories incorrectly, that's potentially libelous and/or catastrophic depending on their specific situation.

Keep

• User:JDPManjoume - Supports Favor 1 and 3, I believe also Favor 2.
• User:Dmitriy Volfson - Very much in favor of Favor 2.

Delete

• User:RadMatter - Against 1 and 2.
• User:Jack "BtR" Saxon - Against 2. But also comments on a specific example where someone wishes for their information to be removed from their page. (Which I think even those in favor of keeping the page are in favor of.)
• User:Scrooge MacDuck - Against 1, with emphasis on 1.1 and I guess implicitly Against 3, since he seems to think that the proper solution is to make Queer representation in Doctor Who an even more robust page.
• User:Chubby Potato - Against 1.
• User:LauraBatham - Against 1, 4, and 5.

Ambiguous

• User:Epsilon the Eternal - Bounces back and forth. Supports Favor 1, then Against 1, then his very last comment seems to indicate that he sees no daylight between the category and Queer representation in Doctor Who.
• User:OncomingStorm12th - Supports Favor 2, but only comments at the beginning of the discussion, before it really gets going.
• User:SOTO - Not really buying RadMatter's arguments, but doesn't explicitly comment on the overall topic, and this was before the discussion really got going.
• User:BastianBalthazarBux - Suggests a compromise to delete the category but keep the citations, but doesn't really engage, not clear if he thinks this is the best idea or just a compromise between the options being discussed.
• User:Shambala108 - Seems to be leaning against based on Against 3. Isn't really explicit with her thoughts and more comments on technical issues.
• User:Bongolium500 - Seems to be hinting towards Against 3, but not explicit, it's all of one comment in a response to Epsilon.

I note as well that there's been some discussion of this on twitter, both for and against.

Cards on the table, what do I think? I think the arguments in favor are decently strong? The one concern is Against 1. There's just no way around it, there's a lot of violence against people in minority groups, and people in these groups have an understandable worry about violence. So we have to ask, does this category meaningfully increase risk? I'm not sure. It's a real tricky question. All of the information we're using is going to be publicly available anyhow, we're not outing anyone. It's just the centrality of the information that will be a concern. But quite a bit of the information is already present at Queer representation in Doctor Who, so I'm not entirely convinced that this category meaningfully contributes to violence. (Now, categories for other minority groups that we might not have such pages for might very well do so. We don't have extensively sourced pages for disability representation in DW just yet, for instance. That's a more complicated question. But these particular two categories don't seem to me to be much of an issue.) I think with proper sourcing and the ability to opt out we're probably handling this the best we can as far as what we're actually responsible for.

The question then becomes, from Against 1.1, whether the worries of the people in these groups are themselves reason to remove the categories, even if the worries in this particular instance are slightly misplaced. And that's a nuanced topic with no obvious answer. There are similarities here to our previous discussion on slurs, (see Thread:277667 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help! and Forum:Temporary forums/Slurs and derogatory terms) except that there's notable disagreement within the marginalized groups as to the benefit of these categories.

I don't think much of Against 5 or Against 4, to be completely honest with you. Against 5 is predicated on the idea that we're not following proper procedure for this category, which assumes malpractice on the part of wiki editors. By this standard we should change all our rules because if they're followed incorrectly bad things can result. Against 4 is true for all of our pages. These comments are trivialities not unique to this situation.

Against 3 is true, but does not in itself constitute reason to delete a category.

Against 2 is, I maintain, a violation of T:BOUND / T:POINT. We discussed this for months in the thread that instituted IU categories for non-het and non-cis individuals. It wasn't found to be a compelling reason to stop the creation of those categories. If we discuss it in relation to this issue it will absorb the entire discussion, still take months, get us absolutely nowhere, and resolve absolutely nothing. The argument proves too much, if it were to be successful it would also require us to delete our IU categories for non-cis / non-het individuals based on the exact same arguments presented at the time, which is a clear violation of T:POINT. This particular argument cannot be made, imo, without violating wiki policy. All of the others are kosher, just this one has issues. (As a result, we also shouldn't discuss Favor 2, as these are two sides of the same coin. The wiki has decided that categories like these, ceteris paribus, are acceptable. The reasons for this decision shouldn't be discussed because it will get us absolutely nowhere.) (Of course, I say this as a non-admin. If an admin likes, they can endorse these terms of discussion in this thread.)

Now, that's just me. But, full disclosure, I do find Against 1 to be worrying. I think this is a thorny issue and ultimately we need to discuss it in a systematic manner. I know I sound like a broken record at this point "we should ask for opinions from the broader community", but I think this is true for this issue as well. It's an issue where a lot of people will have thoughts, and it's going to be contentious. idk man. This is probably the opening post I've written where I'm the least confident. Najawin ☎ 07:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, I do stand by what I said about deleting the categories while keeping the citations. If the concern is about having potentially sensitive information in one place, then deleting the categories should take care of that. I am not aware of anyone saying they do not want their sexuality/identity listed on their own page. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There was one writer who did indicate to us at the time that the work became more widely known about that they would not like theirs to remain listed, and that was something that I speedily dealt with - in terms of removing from their page & leaving a general talk page note about how they wouldn't like personal details to be added to it. (Obviously, I am leaving their name out here so as to avoid 'shooting in the foot' the point of doing that in a way that raised minimal attention.) JDPManjoume ☎ 08:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What has been listed in the OP regards my feelings is accurate on a personal level, but I will note that I have already given up 'holding to it' in terms of the Wiki. The little more I can say is mostly to settle the record on a point: the list of people that I cited largely came from people who were already listed in the categories, rather than being of my own work. In essence, the names that were still all in the categories by the time I had finished my citation run were names evidently already known to Wiki editors.

I don't know what that may or may not say about us editors in terms of interaction with contributors to the DWU, but I did just want to make it clear that I was not plucking names out of thin air to add to it. I was, in some cases, running simply on the fact that others had already known about them enough to be able to add them to the categories uncited & I worked from that to search for personal statements or other valid evidence to ensure there was no inaccuracy. (this would be, for instance, the reason why the matter of Max Adrian became a complicated affair. Who fandom readily refers to him as gay, but when it comes to verification and valid citation, that is a little harder than people would admit.)

Beyond that, however, I would like to note that I do not think there is a easily-made distinction between the categories and how the Queer rep page's coverage of real-world individuals operates. Therefore, my one real hope here (regardless of how the ruling will likely be made on the categories, especially given my conceding at the time) is that we may find a distinction that would, at least, protect the current state of Queer rep. JDPManjoume ☎ 08:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Although my leaning towards Delete is, as the opening post correctly identifies, mostly rooted in ‘Against 1.1’, I disagree with the supposed T:POINT irrelevance of ‘Against 2’ (or some variant of it) based on the prior discussion for in-universe characters. It simply isn't the case that what's relevant and appropriate for categorisation of in-universe characters is always relevant and appropriate for real-world page. There's no real-world equivalent of Category:Human biological fathers or Category:Human adopted children, even though such facts could certainly "influence how you read their work and provide important context for understanding the perspective they're approaching subjects from"! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 07:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean Against 2? Noting that we don't need this category may be true! We might not have good reason to have real world categories here, I don't deny it. But it has nothing to do with the argument that RadMatter and Jack were making and what I was summarizing. They were making the exact same argument as in the previous thread, that it was wrong to have categories for LGBT people because it "othered" them. Najawin ☎ 07:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Typo. I recognise that you were summarising a specific argument involving Jack and RadMatter, but I wouldn't say my development has "nothing" to do with it, and I don't endorse "we might not need this category" as a summary of the point I was making. Again, I think there are demonstrably cases where we get "personal" with IU categories in ways that would be inappropriate with real-world ones. So it might be that the LGBTQ categories are too othering (or otherwise inappropriate) for real-world pages even though they're on the right side of the line for characters.

("Human biological fathers" not existing for real-world people is more about relevance and some sort of privacy thing; but surely one of the problems with "Real world adoptees" would be that it would be potentially othering or stigmatising to real people in a way that doesn't apply to fictional characters. Ditto, say, "Real world criminals".) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 07:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But this seems to be a combination of Against 1.1 and merely noting that there might be additional defeaters to having these RW categories. It's not Against 2. I don't think your read on RW adoptees is correct, and I think the issue with RW criminals is far more complicated, as it gets into /dons Socrates outfit/ the nature of justice and what obligations we have. I do agree that these categories might be inappropriate for RW people, but not because of othering, just because of 1.1, that people are largely uncomfortable. Maybe. Najawin ☎ 09:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But surely people would be uncomfortable, in part, because they'd feel othered? (The safety concerns are another side of this, but not the only one.)

In any case, I didn't mean necessarily to endorse Against 2; merely to say that in my view, a concern of the form "we can't do X because it'd be be othering" is not necessarily invalid for real-world categories even if it's been determined to be invalid for in-universe categories. You see? Perhaps in this case it doesn't really apply in either case, who knows. I just wanted to stick to the higher-level procedural point that for something like this, a prior discussion about in-universe categories should not be binding precedent for analogous real-world categories, even if the talking points are largely identical, because different concerns may apply. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Eh.. If you made a page for me if I ever wrote something and then created a category for "RW (insert hair color here) people", I'd not feel great. Just. It's a bit weird to focus on certain categories of my being that don't immediately feel relevant to DW for me, even if it could theoretically help understand my work. I'm unconvinced. Najawin ☎ 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unconvinced of what? I would agree with everything you just said, so I'm not sure which point you think I was making. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced the issue is one of othering, but more of, perhaps, calling attention to perceived irrelevant details. Najawin ☎ 21:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see. But surely my procedural (non-)qualms hold? That is, if we'd had a discussion determining that putting Amy Pond in Category:Red-haired individuals was actually fine, that wouldn't be binding precedent for real-world pages. Again I am not saying that the othering qualm re: queer cats is especially persuasive to me, just that I don't think the prior resolution regarding in-universe pages would necessarily apply in itself. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But that's not directly analogous to this situation. If someone brought up an argument against putting Amy Pond in said category that was soundly dismissed at the time, and then brought up the same argument for the RW category then we should ignore that argument during the RW discussion, is the analogy. Najawin ☎ 21:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that changes anything. The argument at the time very well could have been "this is calling attention to irrelevant details"! And then that could be "soundly dismissed" as regards a fictional character whose gingerness is commented upon in-narrative all the time, without having any bearing on whether the same "this is calling attention to irrelevant details!" counterargument could be valid with regards to placing a hypothetical "Naj A. Win" author page in "real-world red-haired individuals", say. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. You're not wrong that there's an analogous argument to be made, but there is a clear distinction between the two cases. Namely, there's a defeater to the idea that IU details can be considered irrelevant (you know, the obvious generalization of Talk:Howling Halls/Archive 1), which isn't immediately transferrable to RW cats. We instantly have a stopgap principle to prevent overreach against an argument that proves too much, whereas this isn't true for the charge of "othering". At the very least, if it's not T:POINT, it's an argument we should be deeply skeptical of due to prior rulings. Najawin ☎ 22:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think with things like this a category isn't a good home for this sort of information, it's for a page like Queer representation in Doctor Who to cover this information where nuance, and citations can be used.

I don't think any of the arguments in favour are a good enough reasons for the categories to exist. As has been covered on the Category talk: Non-heterosexual real world people even the naming is awkward and a bit problematic.

I know there is often an eagerness to find new categories to put pages into, but I think there needed to be a pause about some elements of personhood. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've been mulling over this. The tricky thing about this thread is that all of our active admins have participated to one degree or another — if not here, then in the talk page discussion which this thread sought to resolve. The closing admin being uninvolved in the prior discussion is, of course, merely a best-practice guideline, not a hard and fast rule, but I still feel iffy closing it unprompted, especially as someone who's technically also part of the affected population.

But it's well past its 30-day limit and I do think we've found as much of a consensus as we'll ever get. So, here I am at something of an impasse.

For lack of a better way to proceed, I thought I'd ask the community. What do people think of me closing this formally? If public sentiment is that I have too much of a conflict of interest to be procedurally "trusted" with closing it, I'll accept that and we'll… figure something else out, I suppose. (Any suggestions welcome if that's the way things trend.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel comfortable letting you handle the closure.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I trust Scrooge to close this, also. Cousin Ettolrahc [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc| 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Me too. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 22:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to Scrooge closing this. As for the categories themselves, I personally lean in favor of keeping the categories but strictly enforcing sourcing requirements. Pluto2☎ 03:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, I'm not entirely comfortable with doing this, but… will anyone be, ever, for one reason or another? Under the circumstances, I don't suppose it's the worst thing for a member of the affected community to be the one to make the final determination, for once. And I did ask everyone if they objected!

Right. So.

We're all agreed: being queer is neat. Generally speaking, we're really quite proud of it. There's a whole month named after that fact.

However, dangerous as queer erasure is, we must take off the rose-tinted glasses and face facts. Not everyone wants to be, has the luxury to be, completely out. The Internet has blurred the private and the public spheres; many people might off-handedly mention facts about themselves without anticipating that somebody might collect all that private information in one place, and then put it on a highly publicised website with remarkable SEO. When it's done with real names, that sort of thing is called doxxing. We should think twice about doing it with other types of identities.

These categories started with the best of intentions. But ultimately, the item listed in the OP as "Against #1.1" just overrides any of the pros. Many queer people who are really, materially affected by this category's existence have spoken out against it. I don't think it's our place (here I mean "we" the Wiki, not "we" the affected) to even question their reasons. It does not matter if their fears are materially grounded or not, although I trust they often are. And ultimately the "feeling othered" thing is just a facet of this rather than a different bullet-point; the question is not if it's objectively othering but whether real flesh humans feel othered by it in numbers. (Which is why the prior ruling regarding in-universe cats doesn't connect; fictional characters can't feel offended by things.)

It's just plain not nice of us to treat the pages of members of a disadvantaged group a certain way when they're asking us not to and telling us that they fear it may cause them harm. That's where the story ends. We do the nice thing instead of the obsessive-robot thing! Come on! Yes, some other members are neutral-to-positive. But that doesn't give them the right to dictate that other members of the community be categorised against their will. Affected people who are in favour of the categories will, I trust, get more or less the same benefits from plain-text mentions of their identity on the page itself, as well as in the big Queer representation in Doctor Who hub page. The harm caused to them by deleting just the categories themselves is minimal compared to the harm caused to the opponents by disregarding their wishes.

This would be the nice thing to do, nay, the right thing to do, even if it necessitated carving out a specific exception to our normal policies concerning categories. That being said, I also want to clarify that this is not what we're doing now. There are, as I've stated upthread, many cases where we "get ‘personal’ with IU categories in ways that would be inappropriate with real-world one"; we don't have "real-world adoptees" or "real-world redheads" even though the in-universe equivalents are perfectly appropriate. We're simply adding another one to the list, here.

Thanks to everyone who participated, on and off the Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)