2

By happenstance I just noticed the wording of the tag:

The LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and sexual/gender minorities) tag may be used where issues of sexuality, gender, or lack there of, are central to the question

Unless I'm misreading this it sounds like the tag is considered appropriate when issues of sexuality or gender are or are not central to the question? Seems like that can't be correct because then it would always be applicable?

| |
8

It should be read as three possible conditions that would effect the question:

  • Gender
  • Sexuality
  • Lack of gender or lack of sexuality (Or romantic disposition.)

Because the lack of those things can impact a question and it is important that the tag is inclusive of Aromantic, Asexual, and Agender folks.

| |
  • Ah ok. I think I had assumed that not having a traditional gender role would be consider an "issue of gender". – DaveG Mar 14 at 20:58
  • So, it does include asexual heteros? – Mast Mar 20 at 10:53
  • @Mast Yes? Why wouldn't it? – IMightBeAmelia Mar 20 at 19:43
4

Well spotted! Like the other answer explains, the + includes people who lack a gender/sexuality/romantic disposition.

Since the best way to fix confusion is by an edit, I've been talking to another mod and we propose to edit the tag usage guidance to:

Use this tag when issues specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or other sexual/gender minorities impact the interpersonal interaction in the question. Don't use it when a member of the LGBT+ community is involved, but them being LGBT+ isn't relevant to the question.

Right now, The LGBT+ wiki so far only includes when to do/don't use this tag, but that info is supposed to go in the tag usage guidance: The tag wiki is supposed to be a general introduction to a topic defined by that tag. They're a place to consolidate and form a sub-community around a tag. They contain, among other things, frequently asked questions in the tag, top users in the tag, and best recent answers in the tag.. Not a list of when to (not) use a tag.

I propose we edit the tag usage guidance to the proposed sentence above and clear the tag wiki until someone proposes a proper one. (This is on 18/03/2020)

| |
  • Based on the other answer I was mis-parsing the "lack" phrase, makes sense that it should include those who "lack" a particular gender. I honestly don't think it's worth a huge amount of effort, I just happened to hover over it and it struck me as odd, but it makes sense when explained. – DaveG Mar 14 at 21:01
  • 1
    @DaveG I definitely think this community has members that could write a great tag wiki for the tag which also explains the 'lack', the tag usage guidance is a relatively simply edit that doesn't require as much effort :-) By looking at some of the 'big' programming language tags on SO, I can definitely see we might want to do something similar for tags on IPS, but that would indeed require a huge amount of effort. Glad it's clear for you now though! – Tinkeringbell Mar 14 at 21:12
  • Who would have guessed that you'd be having these same arguments with the same people years later... – apaul Jul 21 at 4:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .