Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Galactic LGBT community
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. EcksBot (talk) 20:18, May 8, 2017 (UTC)
With the increasing number of LGBTQ representatives in the Star Wars galaxy, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make a new category for these pages. Sinjir Rath Velus, Delian Mors, Joph Seastriker's mothers, Chelli Lona Aphra, Rae Sloane (per Empire's End), and so on. The only thing being that the in universe equivalent of the community hasn't been given a name as of yet (I think). Please no political debates, this is just a suggestion. DjMack (talk) 07:07, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this issue. I am familiar with those characters having read Chuck Wendig's The Aftermath Trilogy, Paul S. Kemp's Lords of the Sith and Claudia Gray's Bloodline. Those three authors may describe the aforementioned characters as having same-sex relationships but they never use terms like LGBTQ, homosexual, gay, queer, etc in the text For example, Gray describes Joph Seastriker as having two moms, Kemp mentions that Delian Mors has a wife, and Chuck Wendig strongly hints to Sinjir's orientation and same-sex relationship with Conder Kyl in his books. To date, there haven't been any confirmed [Redacted by administration] characters in Star Wars but that might change since future authors may want the characters to reflect contemporary American society. I agree that the Star Wars authors and Lucasfilm Story Group haven't come up for an in-universe term for this community. I am open to the idea of having a category for LGBTQ in-universe characters. Perhaps even creating an article? The problem would be what to call the category and article? We have to be careful not to venture into the realm of speculation. Andykatib 08:27, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- If Wookieepedia was to be finnicky on that matter, having no actual term like "gay" used in canon thus far, a placeholder category name I'd suggest is Persons attracted to the same sex, or something to that effect. I think it'd be worth having some sort of category to group all of them together. DjMack (talk) 09:14, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I personally don't think that's it's necessary to have a category for sexual orientation on Wookieepedia, let a lone n entire article devoted to the subject, but that could just be me. I personally don't think that this can't just be something covered somewhere on the subjects page itself. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 09:35, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- There's really broad categories like Category:Females that are virtually impossible to navigate, I think having an LGBT skewered category would be a page people would be more likely to browse. You have categories for species with limited named members like Lasat and... uh... Category:Jablogians. I think having a gay themed one wouldn't hurt. Wikipedia does it. I think it'd be well received generally and I have this feeling the number of gay characters is just going to grow. DjMack (talk) 09:55, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a category, like "Persons attracted to the same sex" or something similar. I think it would be very useful for the fandom since people will be searching for this information, and it's a great way to highlight the growing inclusivity of the franchise. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:07, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of creating a category unless we can define the phenomenon using actual in-universe terminology, which doesn't seem to be the case at present from skimming through this discussion, and using some vague, open-worded phrasing like "Persons attracted to the same sex" is gimmicky and trivial, in my opinion. To that end, I don't believe Wookieepedia is properly serving its purpose by creating an in-universe category for out-of-universe reasons, namely to "highlight the growing inclusivity of the franchise." For that same reason, I'm also not in favor of creating what would be a conjecturally-titled article to cover this topic. I would suggest waiting for some kind of in-universe terminology to be established first. In the meantime, you could probably create a section in the Sexes article if you really felt obligated to document this stuff. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:39, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. At this point, I would not expect to see an in-universe name applied to same-sex couplings. The reason is that this is now completely normal in modern society. In the GFFA, it would be even more normal. Star Wars authors are going to treat it as such. A person in the Star Wars galaxy would very likely not apply a label to this. It just is what it is. So while I agree with you that a specific article does not need to be created, I see no reason why a category can't be created right now. We really don't need to get caught up in Wookieepedia bureaucracy on this. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:53, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Brandon's reasoning. However, I'm not sure that a category is the best option, due to the open-ended nature of many characters (Eleodie Maracavanya, for example). I think Tope's solution is the most fitting for now, and that it's best to simply include a character's sexual preference on the character's article, the sexes article, or possibly the reproduction article. - Cwedin(talk) 07:10, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say, Brandon. When I say in-universe terminology, that can be as simple as a source using the real-world term "homosexuality." It doesn't need to be an original in-universe term, but it should have some kind of name if we're going to devote categorization to it. "Category:Homosexuals" is far more viable than "Category:Persons attracted to the same sex". That principle applies to any article we would create -- something identified by name in canon is far more worthy of being documented than something that has no name at all. Take the Mundicide article as an example -- we were on the verge of deleting that subject's article and category until we discovered the term "mundicide," which legitimized its in-universe notability. Granted, "mundicide" is IU-specific, but my point is that now we a have term for that subject rather than the unspecific and dubiously notable "List of destroyed planets". That being said, our decision to create any article or category should always hinge on whether something has in-universe significance or notability, not whether something is a popular topic of real-world modern society. Is the fact that some characters happen to be homosexual notable in and of itself in-universe, or are we simply doing this to, again to quote you from before, "highlight the growing inclusivity of the franchise"? I think that's the question we need to ask ourselves when it comes to creating either an article or a category for this subject; if the answer is the latter, I'm inclined to lean towards no. Call it Wookieepedia bureaucracy if you want, but to me this is about encyclopedic pragmatism. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:19, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that encyclopedic pragmatism should be the driving force. However, that's precisely what leads me to the opposite conclusion. If I'm reading about, say, shang stew, and I wonder, "what other stews are documented in this universe?," I just click the relevant category, and I get a list. Likewise, if I'm reading about a character, and the article mentions the character is homosexual, I might say (aloud, of course, because I'm muttering to myself as I read Wookieepedia), "I wonder what other characters in this universe are homosexual." There ought to be a way to answer that question. That's the very purpose of categories: a pragmatic one. It's about letting readers easily learn what they want to know, and needn't have anything to do with "highlighting the growing inclusivity of the franchise" or other such goals. Asithol (talk) 21:17, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should hold a consensus track vote on this issue. Just remembered that Chuck Wendig's novel Aftermath: Life Debt has a [Redacted by administration] character in the form of Eleodie Maracavanya. This means that [Redacted by administration] does exist in the Disney Canon timeline. Based on the information we know, we could create two categories for gay and lesbian characters and [Redacted by administration] characters. Andykatib 21:30, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. At this point, I would not expect to see an in-universe name applied to same-sex couplings. The reason is that this is now completely normal in modern society. In the GFFA, it would be even more normal. Star Wars authors are going to treat it as such. A person in the Star Wars galaxy would very likely not apply a label to this. It just is what it is. So while I agree with you that a specific article does not need to be created, I see no reason why a category can't be created right now. We really don't need to get caught up in Wookieepedia bureaucracy on this. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:53, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of creating a category unless we can define the phenomenon using actual in-universe terminology, which doesn't seem to be the case at present from skimming through this discussion, and using some vague, open-worded phrasing like "Persons attracted to the same sex" is gimmicky and trivial, in my opinion. To that end, I don't believe Wookieepedia is properly serving its purpose by creating an in-universe category for out-of-universe reasons, namely to "highlight the growing inclusivity of the franchise." For that same reason, I'm also not in favor of creating what would be a conjecturally-titled article to cover this topic. I would suggest waiting for some kind of in-universe terminology to be established first. In the meantime, you could probably create a section in the Sexes article if you really felt obligated to document this stuff. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:39, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a category, like "Persons attracted to the same sex" or something similar. I think it would be very useful for the fandom since people will be searching for this information, and it's a great way to highlight the growing inclusivity of the franchise. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:07, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- There's really broad categories like Category:Females that are virtually impossible to navigate, I think having an LGBT skewered category would be a page people would be more likely to browse. You have categories for species with limited named members like Lasat and... uh... Category:Jablogians. I think having a gay themed one wouldn't hurt. Wikipedia does it. I think it'd be well received generally and I have this feeling the number of gay characters is just going to grow. DjMack (talk) 09:55, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I personally don't think that's it's necessary to have a category for sexual orientation on Wookieepedia, let a lone n entire article devoted to the subject, but that could just be me. I personally don't think that this can't just be something covered somewhere on the subjects page itself. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 09:35, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- "To date, there haven't been any confirmed [Redacted by administration] characters in Star Wars..." I believe Hutts were able to change their sex in the old EU. I'm not sure if this is still the case. Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:36, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason, it changed. --Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 17:43, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- The issue with using something like Category:Homosexuals or something similar is that we are often never going to be able to specifically say that they're homosexual as opposed to say bisexual or pansexual. If I remember correctly Sinjir states he isn't attracted to women, but while we know Aphra had a same-sex relationship in the past that doesn't mean that she hasn't also had opposite-sex relationships. I mean for all we know Han, Luke, Leia or almost anyone could actually be bisexual; there's nothing in any source to my knowledge that specifically states their sexual orientation. I feel as though overall while this idea might have the best intentions in mind it will likely end up with us accidentally causing offense. Even writing this reply I feel I've probably slipped up somewhere and offended someone, so apologies for my ignorance if I have. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:32, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- I might even suggest we tentatively try and get the community's views on this, I'm not really sure how but perhaps through social media? There will likely be suggestions from more knowledgeable sources on the subject as to how it might be handled. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:42, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, asking for opinions via social media on a topic like this is going to generate some pretty hateful comments. So that's not going to happen. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:48, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- I feel as though doing this at all will generate hateful comments, but that shouldn't be a reason for not doing it. Still you're probably right that social media wouldn't help, I can't think of anyone suitable to directly ask for advice. I just feel as though from the discussion I've seen here so far we might not be well versed enough in the breadth of the LGBT+ community and the different identities within it to handle it correctly. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:56, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, asking for opinions via social media on a topic like this is going to generate some pretty hateful comments. So that's not going to happen. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:48, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02: If we address homosexuality, we'll offend someone. If we fail to address it, we'll offend someone. We can't be inoffensive to all people. All we can do is be respectful in addressing this aspect that is now part of the Star Wars universe and is not going away, while preserving the principles of what best serves our readership. Maybe we won't get it exactly right at first, but that's part of the nature of a continuously evolving reference work. Over time, more eyes will look at it, and it'll get refined, just like everything else here.
You raise a good point about the unspecified sexuality of most characters. But it's ultimately like the myriad other unspecified aspects of the Star Wars galaxy; we can only report on what information is in official sources, and remain silent on anything else. Our agreed-upon duck test—though at the time it encompassed only assigning a species—is a common-sense solution here as well: since Han Solo acts like a heterosexual and quacks like a heterosexual, we don't need to deem him a "possible but unconfirmed bisexual." Asithol (talk) 23:23, March 2, 2017 (UTC)- I seem to have been unclear in my points. I wasn't suggesting we don't include homosexuality because it will offend people, I was suggesting that offending people shouldn't stop us from including it, but that there are other reasons not to. I also wasn't suggesting that we start listing everyone as unconfirmed bisexual, my point was that this area is so full of unknowns that it is a poor idea for us to try and categorise it. Since there are literally zero characters as far as I know who outright state their sexual orientation using a definitive term, applying any term would be pure assumption on our part and we would be applying the duck test to everyone: We only see this character being attracted to a member of the opposite sex so they're probably hetrosexual, we only see this character attracted to a member of the same sex so they're probably homosexual. It makes far more sense to simply describe the individual relationships or attractions we know about on each character's page and not make any broader assumptions about their overall sexuality unless it is directly stated otherwise, as is the case with Sinjir. I understand that we might not get it right on the first attempt, but what I'm suggesting is that we simply don't have the information to make an attempt at all. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:50, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for misinterpreting you earlier. You make some excellent points. I suppose for me it comes down to the issue of what's most useful to readers. You're right, we don't want to pinpoint sexual orientation where no source has done so. Nevertheless, the set of characters who have exhibited inclinations other than heterosexual is small, and it's reasonable that a reader might want to know who all of them are. Perhaps a category isn't the best way to convey this, but I don't have any better ideas offhand. More to ponder. Asithol (talk) 00:54, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to have been unclear in my points. I wasn't suggesting we don't include homosexuality because it will offend people, I was suggesting that offending people shouldn't stop us from including it, but that there are other reasons not to. I also wasn't suggesting that we start listing everyone as unconfirmed bisexual, my point was that this area is so full of unknowns that it is a poor idea for us to try and categorise it. Since there are literally zero characters as far as I know who outright state their sexual orientation using a definitive term, applying any term would be pure assumption on our part and we would be applying the duck test to everyone: We only see this character being attracted to a member of the opposite sex so they're probably hetrosexual, we only see this character attracted to a member of the same sex so they're probably homosexual. It makes far more sense to simply describe the individual relationships or attractions we know about on each character's page and not make any broader assumptions about their overall sexuality unless it is directly stated otherwise, as is the case with Sinjir. I understand that we might not get it right on the first attempt, but what I'm suggesting is that we simply don't have the information to make an attempt at all. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:50, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- I might even suggest we tentatively try and get the community's views on this, I'm not really sure how but perhaps through social media? There will likely be suggestions from more knowledgeable sources on the subject as to how it might be handled. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:42, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- The issue with using something like Category:Homosexuals or something similar is that we are often never going to be able to specifically say that they're homosexual as opposed to say bisexual or pansexual. If I remember correctly Sinjir states he isn't attracted to women, but while we know Aphra had a same-sex relationship in the past that doesn't mean that she hasn't also had opposite-sex relationships. I mean for all we know Han, Luke, Leia or almost anyone could actually be bisexual; there's nothing in any source to my knowledge that specifically states their sexual orientation. I feel as though overall while this idea might have the best intentions in mind it will likely end up with us accidentally causing offense. Even writing this reply I feel I've probably slipped up somewhere and offended someone, so apologies for my ignorance if I have. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:32, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason, it changed. --Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 17:43, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- If Wookieepedia was to be finnicky on that matter, having no actual term like "gay" used in canon thus far, a placeholder category name I'd suggest is Persons attracted to the same sex, or something to that effect. I think it'd be worth having some sort of category to group all of them together. DjMack (talk) 09:14, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
- [indentation reset] In three weeks, I haven't come up with anything better. A viable alternative might be a List of characters who have exhibited same-sex attraction article, which has the advantage over a category that it could describe the specific details of each character listed. But to me, that's a poor solution for that very reason: duplicating information already in the individual characters' articles makes it more likely that as updates are needed, some place will be missed. A category, on the other hand, could have a couple of sentences at the top explaining exactly what the category encompasses, and would then be a simple list of links to explore for information about each character. Furthermore, a simple mechanism for including a category on a character page already exists, and those links are in a consistent and easy-to-find place. Links to a hypothetical List article would have to be incorporated into the relevant characters' articles somehow, creating more work for editors and making the links harder to find for readers.
- The primary objection seems to be that people feel we shouldn't collate this information at all, merely have each character's preferences outlined on his or her own page. But if you agree that:
- the set of characters who have exhibited same-sex attraction is small
- readers reading about one such character might want to know what other characters are in this set
- then we're not serving our readers in the best way possible if we provide no such mechanism. If you disagree with either of these assertions, I'd like to hear that point of view as well. Asithol (talk) 20:14, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that people might find a category useful, but if a category is used it needs to use the right terminology. I'm not sure why the number of individuals is relevant unless it's a list. I've been wondering if non-hetrosexual characters would work? It doesn't make any assumptions about specific orientation outside of simply not only being attracted to the opposite gender. The issue is that hetrosexual isn't a term that's ever been used in-universe. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:21, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I just joined Wookieepedia, so I'm obviously late to the discussion. But if you're looking for someone to help you on this, well, I'm a lesbian trans woman, so... Just reading through this discussion, I've already got a couple ideas as far as names for a new category. A common term is "sexual minority". This most often applies to LGB people, but can include trans and gender-variant folks. I should mention though that some people take issue with the use of the word "minority", and some trans people take issue with the term as a whole because being trans technically has nothing to do with sex as far as orientation, which is usually what the term means. As I threw in above, "gender-variance" is another term, but is the inverse in that it only applies to gender and not sexual orientation. Granted, if we wanted to create more than one category, or subcategory if you have those here (like I said, I'm new), then we could use both those. But from what I've read and what I'm aware of, there are so few such characters at this point that it wouldn't be necessary. Still, I just wanted to throw those out there. The other term that many actually feel should replace LGBT is GSD or GSM, which is "gender and sexual diversity/minority" (obviously, the issue with the word "minority" comes up again with the latter term). There's also GSRM, which is "gender, sexual, and romantic minorities". Personally, I like "gender and sexual diversity", as I feel it really includes anyone along the gender spectrum and sexual orientation spectrum. I realize it's still a tad wordy, though maybe not quite as much as "persons attracted to the same sex" lol. In any case though, that's my take on this. I would also point out, however, that the page for Sinjir, under the "personality" section, uses the term "homosexual". And the page for Eleodie uses the term "gender-neutral" to refer to Eleodie's use of the gender-neutral pronouns zhe and zher (Eleodie is not a [Redacted by administration], as someone earlier claimed). So you already have such real-world terms in use. Though perhaps they're not supposed to be? I don't know. But anyway, let me know what you guys think or if you have any questions, etc. Thanks and sorry for the long post.--SamanthaJo (talk) 17:44, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
- After reading this whole page, two things happened to me. Firstly, my head now hurts from all the debate, but secondly, I think that everyone has some very good points. Please note that I don't mean to offend anyone in stating my thoughts, but merely wish to present them. With that said, for the sake of pragmatism and the near-future, I think we should simply stick with our current policy of dealing with this issue, as I see no real problem with the way it is currently handled. Thus, we should simply stick with mentioning whether or not a character is LGBT in the behind the scenes section, like we do for the Delian Mors page (who, by the way, has been confirmed as Star Wars' first LGBT character). Likewise, for characters themselves, I think that simply mentioning that "X female character was married to X female character" in the history section of their article is enough for the time being, as it states that they are LGBT without specifically calling attention to the fact. While I understand that some may wish to be more explicit in stating such details, I think we should wait as others have stated until an appropriate in-universe term is created. Additionally, as Ayrehead02 has pointed out, many characters in Star Wars do not have their sexual orientation deliberately stated. Thus, technically speaking, Leia Organa or Luke Skywalker could be LGBT, although most people assume that this is not the case. Thus, it would be speculation to write on articles where it is hinted but not confirmed that characters may or may not be LGBT that they are LGBT, which goes against Wookieepedia's policy on speculation. Thus, such speculation should be left in the behind the scenes section of said article, along with mentioning whether or not a character is LGBT if it has been confirmed, (like the Delian Mors page) until an in-universe term is created. ( In other words, Wookieepedia's policy is to state fact. Saying that someone was married to someone of the same sex if it is specifically stated is fact, as it happened. By saying this, we state fact without stating whether or not the character is gay/lesbian or bisexual, which has not been stated as fact.) Until the community comes to a consensus, I think this is the best option for the time being. Commander Boots 22:22, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's reasonable enough. I do think though (and again, I'm new here) that we will have to create some sort of category or list page at some point sooner or later.--SamanthaJo (talk) 00:45, April 7, 2017 (UTC)