Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric

I'm considering adding a section on anti-bi rhetoric (such as that bi people are overly promiscuous, confused, attention seeking, etc.) I don't know that I have enough to make it a section of its own, but putting it under "anti-gay" rhetoric wouldn't be correct. Should that section's name be changed to anti-LGB rhetoric or something like that? Or should I make a new section anyways and hope it gets expanded upon?

Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'd edit without a talking point but it's semi protected. In topic "Anti-transgender rhetoric" under "Transgender desistance and regret" it says "1.3 of transgender and gender diverse youth and 13.1 percent of transgender and gender diverse adults detransition after receiving gender-affirming care.". This should be "1.3%" or "1.3 percent" Roebro (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Done. Thanks for noticing it. DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Note: The post does not take the form of any attack on the LGBT movement. It merely shows the lack of neutrality and a neutral point of view in this article. It does not describe LGBT individuals as such, and does not cite any examples involving these people at all. It merely demonstrates manipulation and the lack of balance between opponent and proponent sources of LGBT criticism. The report does not concern the topic of LGBT itself, but rather issues regarding this article: the presentation and manipulation of sources (the content of the sources does not fully align with the content of the article) and the removal of sources representing an alternative viewpoint (only one perspective is presented in the article).

The article lacks objectivity and completely lacks a neutral point of view:

• The article mainly presents the opinions of opponents of the anti-LGBTQ movement and rhetoric against the anti-LGBTQ movement.
• The introduction of the article is false and/or misleading. Quoting: "Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric – a collection of topics, slogans, and catchphrases used to degrade, stigmatize, and dehumanize lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals, as well as a tool for political mobilization serving to create moral panic and legitimize discrimination. In the literature on the subject and in documents of international organizations, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric is described as a form of hate speech[1]". So what is rhetoric? Must rhetoric be purely brutal in nature? Is a person who simply speaks openly and argues that they are opposed to same-sex marriage already using rhetoric? If so, the introduction of the article is pure lie and manipulation.
• The origins of the anti-LGBTQ movement are presented in a negative light; sources showing a different point of view are completely omitted in the article.
• The article uses sources in a manipulative way; some formulations or the sources themselves show logical errors, e.g., "anti-LGBTQ rhetoric is often based on moral panic and conspiracy theories" – this claim is completely false and it stands out glaringly. Could there really be no traditionalists who simply treat marriage as a holy sacrament between a man and a woman – and therefore use anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? Already this single sentence in the introduction of the article proves how extreme a lack of a neutral point of view this article represents and what nonsense it presents, relying purportedly on specific sources showing only one point of view.
• The article presents only a "Western" point of view; there is no information about anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from other countries, or even the prominent rhetoric from Muslim countries in recent years. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Neutral point of view on Wikipedia is determined by reflecting the predominant views of published, reliable sources. There is no evidence presented here that the article misrepresents the sources in any way. Merely asserting that the sources do not fully align with the article's contents is not evidence, and insisting on presenting an alternative viewpoint is simply a false balance. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC) edited 03:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply