Forum:Category:Non-heterosexual real world people: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Category:Non-heterosexual real world people (view source)

Revision as of 17:44, 19 August 2023

353 bytes added , 19 August 2023

→‎Conclusion

Scrooge MacDuck

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

38,060

edits

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 ''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. 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.
+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.