This is anessay on theWikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline andWikipedia:Civility policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: It is well within the scope of thedisruptive editing guidelines to discipline editors for behavior indicative of queerphobia. This essay lays out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.

Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBTQ views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by theWP:NPOV policy. Expressions ofhomophobia,lesbophobia,gayphobia,biphobia,transphobia,arophobia,acephobia, or generalqueerphobia are not welcome here. Theydisrupt the encyclopedia by promotingWP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBTQ editors.

The essayWP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE lays out why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia and results in blocking and banning; others such asWikipedia:No racists,Wikipedia:No Nazis, andWikipedia:No Confederates lay out more specific guidelines for those forms of bigotry; this essay specifically serves to outline common anti-LGBTQ beliefs, disruptive manifestations of them, and the systems of recourse on English Wikipedia.

Discussions have raged on for decades about how Wikipedia should write about LGBTQ people and topics. Gender and sexuality (WP:GENSEX) are currently considered acontentious topic (formerly "discretionary sanctions"), meaning that editors contributing to articles and discussions about these topics must strictly follow Wikipedia's behavioral and editorial guidelines.MOS:GENDERID and the supplementary essayMOS:GIDINFO contain the most up-to-date guidelines for writing about transgender people on Wikipedia.

Anti-LGBTQ editors frequently disrupt Wikipedia by promoting misinformation or pushing fringe viewpoints (particularly dangerous in medical articles), and create an unwelcoming environment for other editors. Editors who are unable to set aside their beliefs about the LGBTQ community when editing or who seek to promoteWP:FRINGE viewpoints may berestricted from editing.

This essay outlines common queerphobic beliefs, popular misinformation about the LGBTQ community, and groups known to spread and support it, so that administrators and editors may recognize them, address them, and show queerphobes the door.

This essay and sister essays such asWP:NORACISTS,WP:NOCONFED, andWP:NONAZIS face a common criticism: "we should sanction editors for their behaviors, not their beliefs".

This is not an unfair argument so it bears exploration. The essayWikipedia:Hate is disruptive addresses the issue like this (emphasis added):

This essay is based on that underlying principle, put succinctly as "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". If you believe LGBTQ people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy, but practicecivility, never bring it up, and solely contribute to articles about entomology and highways, you have nothing to worry about and your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed. This essay isn't about you. If you try to change the first sentence ofLGBTQ toAll LGBTQ people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy...—or insist on talk pages that this is the case and Wikipedia needs to take your POV seriously—thatis a behavioral issue and the focus of this essay.

This is an essay, not a content or behavioural guideline. This section provides a working definition ofqueerphobia by way of editing behaviors and POVs widely considered disruptive, hateful, insulting, orFRINGE. Their inclusion here alone is not necessarily an accusation of bigotry, a restriction on editing, or a consensus-backed judgement ondue weight.

Queerphobia is the fear, hatred, or dislike oflesbian,gay,bisexual,transgender, and otherwisequeer people. Queerphobes commonly believe that LGBTQ people and identities are deviant, and should be denied rights and protections.

• That being LGBTQ isunnatural or aconscious choice.^[1]
• That LGBTQ people are inherentlyfetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous.
• That the LGBTQ community or a subset of it areindoctrinating or grooming youth into being LGBTQ.
• That LGBTQ people overall have greater societal power thancisgender/heterosexual people.
• Thatmarriage,adoption, orparenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
• That recognizing same-sex marriage is a slippery slope towards legalizingbestiality or other strange or disfavored sexual practices.
• That the open or subtextual presence of LGBTQ people or acknowledgment of them is inappropriately sexual or political and should be kept from the public square, media, or education.^[1]
• That public spaces such as offices or schools should not protect LGBTQ people from bullying, deadnaming, and misgendering.
• That LGBTQ (and intersex people's) rights are nothuman rights or LGBTQ people are requesting "special rights".^[2][1]
• That people turn transgender due to "gender ideology".^[1]
• That LGBTQ people should be forced to undergo medical or psychological treatments, procedures, or testing on the basis of their identity.^[3]
• That transgender people should be unable to change their legal gender, should be invariably excluded from gendered spaces, or should be legally deniedmedical transition or have it otherwise made inaccessible.^[4][3]
• That the human rights of transgender people are at odds with women’s rights^[5]
• That transgender people pose a threat to the "rights, spaces, and safety" ofcisgender women^[5]
• That the rights of LGBTQ people are negotiable and debatable^{[Note 1][5]}
• Thatanti-trans laws are there to "protect children", when in reality these laws are violating basichuman rights,^[6] and arelinked to a rise in transgender youth suicides.^[7][8]

Overlapping with the narratives and beliefs above are more medically-related misconceptions, often associated with pseudoscientific/unevidenced proposals and typologies. The guidelineWP:FRINGE addresses how to handle these in article space. In short, we don't include them in articles on the broader topic, but if notable we can discuss them in their own articles while making clear they're fringe).

Some of these common misconceptions include:

• That being LGBTQ is a mental illness or disorder.^[1][4]
• That LGBTQ identities can be cured, treated, or suppressed^[3][1] — commonly referred to asconversion therapy, advocates often use alternate terms such as "reparative therapy" or "gender exploratory therapy" to hide the true meaning and may justify it in scientific or religious terms.
• The belief that "transition" always implies a full medical transition. In reality, transition is a slow process that involves many steps, several of which involveno medical intervention at all. The process starts with these non-medical steps, and includes regular check-ups to evaluate the outcome of every step.^[9]
• The belief that medical transition commonly occurs in children. This is also false because in many cases, these types of interventions physically cannot be performed on children. Where transition occurs in children, it invariably refers to social transition, which is completely reversible.
• That LGBTQ people, particularly youth, have become LGBTQ through media exposure, peer pressure, orsocial contagion. This narrative is often repeated as if it were a serious scientific theory, but in reality it has never had any scientific support, as explained in detailhere.
• That using alternate terms such asgender-critical feminism as a rebranding from their original terms such astrans exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) hide the true hate-based origin of their beliefs

• That pushing anti-LGBTQ narratives is protected byfree speech or theneutral point of view policy.
• Thatmisgendering transgender subjects or consistently using theirdeadname is necessary to preserve a neutral point of view, "biological reality"^[10][11] or "the historical record". (SeeMOS:GENDERID for the current consensus on how to deal with pronouns in BLPs; seehere for the most recent consensus regarding the use of deadnames for dead people.)
• That LGBTQ editors have an inherentconflict of interest or are unable to write neutrally on LGBTQ-related topics because they are LGBTQ.
• That "gender-critical beliefs" cannot be consideredWP:FRINGE forreasons related to UK labour law.

These beliefs may manifest in various ways that damage the encyclopedia. Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible ones.

• WP:TENDENTIOUS promotion ofWP:FRINGE viewpoints about the LGBTQ community, commonlycivil POV-pushing.
• Hostility toward other editors, such as consistently treating LGBTQ editors as biased, or refusing to gender them correctly.
• Denigrating comments about the LGBTQ community in articles and talk space, often through the use ofdog whistles and/or phrases^[10] serving to delegitimize transgender people (e.g. calling trans women"males masquerading as females").
• Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBTQ sentiments (e.g. a userbox with the text"This user Hate LGBT").
• Deadnaming ormisgendering article subjects, or arguing against using their current pronouns in violation of Wikipedia'sMOS:GENDERID guidelines.

Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as-ist or-phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or acoup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form ofpersonal attack which may lead to the accuserbeing blocked.

Aspersions make the normaldispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create achilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.

To avoid unnecessary conflict when reporting a user to AE or ANI for legitimately problematic behavior, describe the user's behavior, as well as any issues it may have caused in as neutral a tone as possible and avoid any value judgements or claims about its nature. This lets the administrators make their own determination about the nature of the problem, and avoids making your report "about" some larger conflict.

You should alwaysassume good faith and exercisecivility. However,our social policies are not a suicide pact; we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance.

For a new editor, understand that they are likely ignorant of Wikipedia systems and standards. Point them toward relevant guidelines and policies. If they are editing material related to gender identification, make them aware of theGENSEX topic restrictions via the{{Contentious topics/alert/first|gg}} or{{Contentious topics/alert|gg}} templates. If they are arguing against the guidelines, make it clear that you can't change the guidelines in an article discussion and direct them toward where such discussions can take place.

If an editor consistently and chronically disrupts the encyclopedia by promoting queerphobic opinions/viewpoints, you should collect relevant diffs and report them. If an editor was already made aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions, then you can request enforcement atWP:AE. Otherwise, request administrator attention atWP:ANI.

Editors brazenly vandalizing articles or using slurs may be immediately blocked. Wikipedia haszero tolerance for such behavior. If an edit is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, it may be subject torevision deletion. If an edit breaches someone's privacy, you should requestOversight.

It can be very tempting, especially in article talk pages, to debate or rebut anti-LGBTQ talking points on their own merits. However, remember thatWikipedia is not a forum. Stick to source-based and policy-based discussions which serve to improve articles. If a conversation is blatantlyunconstructive or off-topic, then consider collapsing, refactoring, or moving it so that you and other editors don't waste others' time.

A common occurrence from vandals is the intentionalWP:DEADNAMING orWP:MISGENDERING of transgender people in violation of our guidelines. You can follow some common guidance onhow to handle such cases.

• Wikipedia:Zero tolerance
• Wikipedia:Gender identity

• Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive
• Wikipedia:No Nazis
• Wikipedia:No racists
• Wikipedia:No Confederates

• Movements and ideologies
  • 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States
  • 21st century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom
  • Anti-gender movement
  • List of anti-LGBTQ hate groups
  • Gender-critical feminism
• Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric
  • Bathroom bill
  • Deadnaming
  • Gay mafia
  • Homosexual recruitment
  • "LGBTQ ideology"
• LGBTQ and Wikipedia
• LGBTQ conspiracy theories
  • AIDS denial
  • Drag panic
  • Gay agenda
  • Gay frogs conspiracy theory
  • Grooming conspiracy theory
  • Homosexual seduction
  • Litter boxes in schools hoax
• Disputed medical concepts
  • Conversion therapy
  • Blanchard's transsexualism typology
  • Rapid-onset gender dysphoria

• Wikipedia essays