Talk:LGBT ideology

3021:

politically engendering belief that children are being indoctrinated with normalisation of LGBT relationships, and are being groomed to be gay. Reliable sources I adduced and bullet-pointed to illustrate this have all been reverted. Moreover a notable psychologist who used the term 'sexual ideology', surely a clear comparator with 'LGBT ideology' in an interview with the Irish Times, likewise was reverted as "failed". As it stands, this entire article fails to define what LGBT ideology actually is. Moreover, by limiting it to Poland, it is masking the fact that similar beliefs and laws exist in dozens of other countries, some criminalised at law with Draconian punishments. There are many acceptable synonyms for 'LGBT' and for 'ideology'. It is absurd to restrict this topic to Poland, and equally absurd to insist on this precise alphabetic sequence of characters.

2159:, which is as close to identical to 'LGBT ideology' as you can get. If consensus among editors is going to be that it is to remain only about Poland, then it surely needs a rename to 'LGBT ideology in Poland' or something equivalent. In its present state, the article should not be searchable by the public, since as has already been pointed out, it lacks focus. It should go to Draft namespace so as minimise confusion caused by having such significant changes from one hour to the next. An academiuc citing this article over the past week may find the article unrecognisable upon revisiting it, depending on the point when it had been read. Requiring sources to explicitly use the phrase 'LGBT ideology' and limiting its ambit to Poland shuts off swathes of interesting and pertinent information in relation to other countries who legislate against their LGBT minorities. 1853:

actually allege that LGBT ideology exists and is being used for such and such (presumably nefarious) purpose. Random claims made against LGBT people are not part of the "LGBT ideology" conspiracy theory unless someone actually alleges that they are, and even then there is a serious DUE consideration for the lede. Draftification does not by itself encourage people to take policy into consideration when deciding what sources and what text to include, and that is the problem I am seeing right now. When inappropriate material is included by editors, our job is to challenge it through deletion, tagging or amendment, not to plead for draftification so that policy can be followed more slowly.

1924:. To understand what LGBT ideology is, to the point a reader of this article will have their understanding of it expanded, requires an exploration of what those who use the term believe it to mean. This is what the bullet points were addressing, although they could be moved to the body of the article. Since no editors so far seem to think LGBT ideology actually exists, it's obviously necessary and interesting to find out what people who use the term believe it means, as per the bullet points. For example, Birmingham activists who accused schools of indoctrination may or may not use the term 'LGBT ideology', but that is clearly concordant with the fears of those who use it. 813:, I'm a volunteer, too, and I'm sympathetic to your point about "deleting within a week". Here's my issue: with Knowledge being the behemoth on the internet that it is, and mirrors and other copies of Knowledge content proliferating, even getting into printed books, it just makes me very nervous to create an article in MAINSPACE which is instantly indexed by Google, and possibly linked from other articles here, being seen as "definitive" by outside websites and authors, who start to quote from it or link to it. There is a real, serious, Heisenberg issue here; Knowledge can 656:

Notability, it's hard to see how a topic that is in the news in almost every country on a regular basis, that united 100 Polish councils and the entire Russian Duma against LGBT ideology, and that moreover manifests in anti-LGBT laws in over 70 countries (some with the Death Penalty) could not be considered 'notable'. While this article being developed, might it be better to Sandbox this piece until all the work that obviously needs to be done on it, has been given a chance to be carried out? It's far too early to bin it or merge it.

2686:

ideology-free zones, and that inclusion of this material in the "zones" article is likely either to be UNDUE for that article or to drift away from an appropriate focus on the conspiracy theory itself. TL; DR: I think there is an unquestionably notable and relevant article to be written here if the focus is kept to Poland; the equivalent issues in Russia seem to be effectively dealt with in the article on the anti-gay law, so I don't see a need to repeat them here.

817:, simply by creating an article about it. Imho, it's very important for us to remain an encyclopedia, and not drive the debate in the RW, but merely report on it. It makes me very nervous having this article here, about something that might be percolating comments on blogs all over the place. If newspapers in Poland are using the phrase, great; let them use it, develop it on their own, and not start getting influenced by Knowledge's saying that the 2895:, I understand your reaction, and maybe a brief article break would help while you tend to your other interests, but your viewpoint is needed here, and helpful. Please come back after whatever cooling off you need. You've obviously given this topic a lot of thought, and not having your experience with it would be a loss. Just because it's contentious, doesn't mean it's not worth it; in fact, it may mean it's worth it more than ever. 313: 295: 862:(also only about Poland) would have made far more sense, but since that is likely to be reverted or challenged by the article creator, and nearly 100% of my work got continually reverted by the article creator and an ally while it was barely 1/10 of the way through being edited, I have bowed out of this one entirely. It's pointless trying to contribute to it, since it has become an edit war. Thanks for your reply, though! 323: 22: 3494: 71: 53: 1739:. We need sources that say that, and ones that don't are not relevant. I agree that the word "ideology" doesn't necessarily have to be used - the sources could say "ideological" or even use the language of "values" or what not - but the interpretation that there is an ideological divide has to come from the sources themselves, and not from an interpretation you impose on them from the outside. Yes? 81: 161: 143: 3111:

italicized or not, it's only about #99 in importance, compared to whether the topic is notable or not, and whether the references are valid or not. Once there is solid consensus on all the rest of that, we can circle back and deal with styling, but this isn't the right moment for that. Having said all that, Roscelese is right, but we should come at it from the other way round, and both the

1578:. Now I don't know whether this statement can be sourced or not, but it certainly is not supported by either of the two sources originally offered, nor by either of the two replacement sources. It looks as though someone has been searching for "LGBT", "ideology" and "liberalism" and linking what they see, hoping that something sticks. This is not the way we are supposed to write articles. 1868:

This should be being built 'behind closed doors' until consensus is reached on the article being ready to publish. That takes as long as it takes, and isn't just "following policy more slowly". In the process, feel free to replace the bullet points with something that better defines what you think LGBT ideology really is in the minds of those who believe it's real. Just because a

171: 245: 227: 3457:

highly unbalanced article, followed by an immediate second edit using one of the alternative approaches, thus preserving the pristine, long original in the history. And finally, there's the one you found, merging other articles in as well and maintaining balance that way. At first blush, that sounds fine to me. I'll look at it and respond tomorrow at the discussion.

2503:. These bullet points address the problem of the opening paragraph that has been highlighted in the notice at the top of the page. They explore what those who oppose an LGBT ideology believe the ideology to be. If this cannot be explored, then there will be no chance of defining what LGBT ideology is. It exists in the mind of people, and the bullet points link to 1834:

is: The lead sentence doesn't define the topic of the article." Other matters appertaining to the body of the article need time to research and to construct, so that each bullet point in the lede can have a section expanding on it in the body. So, please vote in the Move proposal below, and perhaps you can be the one to move it there.

2586:

Christian babies". No-one would argue that Jews should be allowed to Christian babies, so the question falls as to why such a law would be written to begin with. It doesn't require a PhD to understand that such a law implies that, but for this law, Jews WERE killing Christian babies, and this law was needed to stop them.

1964:

and 'homosexual agenda', and was there a reason for not simply adding 'LGBT ideology' as a section in the homosexual agenda article in the first place? And why is this article only about Poland, when there are other countries, notably Russia and former member states of the Soviet Union, with comparable laws, such as the

999:. The two other terms in the lead sentence should be dropped; they are not synonyms. As an aside: the body section "Definition" doesn't offer a definition, either; if it did, it could be summarized in the lead. But that's perhaps understandable, as none of the references currently in the Definition section ever mention 1891:

Chrisdevelop, You need to use sources that actually use the phrase "LGBT ideology", otherwise it's wp:or. Many of the sources are in Polish. I do think the phrase is notable because there have been eg. pickets under slogans "LGBT is people" and "I am not an ideology". But we have to focus the article

3456:

when you merge; there are various other approaches: condense or summarize to maintain balance, drop the least important or least well sourced, move details to long footnotes, or cache content on the Talk page while waiting for other sections to expand. You can even merge all of it into a momentarily

3110:

governs the style (italics or not) of a word used in an article; but that is so often misunderstood or ignored, and is tricky wrt to the title even when explained, that I didn't want to go into much detail about style here. In the end, since WAW is purely about style, and whether an article title is

2873:

Vast amounts of time have been wasted editing this article to broaden its scope, only to then have all this work reverted by the author and others citing 'consensus', when there was none asked for, and none expressed, either for or against. There is now no text to clarify what LGBT ideology actually

2779:

While it would be possible to specify the scope of the topic in the lede without changing the title, my concern about that is that people would continue to do what they are doing already, namely, to add content that is not relevant to the actual, RSed topic of this article, because they want to talk

2322:

Uh-oh, given some recent additions to the Lead I hadn't noticed the topic is now starting to become confused. The first two sentences of the lead, as well as the Criticism and Support sections appear to be about the word, while the remainder of the Lead, and most of "Background" section is about the

2080:

seeking consensus on this point (especially as edit warring has been mentioned as a possible issue), nevertheless I don't know that it's absolutely necessary to have consensus on it. That is, if Chris (or someone) wanted to just move it without consensus, I don't think there's a guideline to say you

1963:

That's going to severely curtail the ambit of this article if only the precise sequence of letters 'L G B T i d e o l o g y' can be allowed in the sources. There are many synonymous terms, of which homosexual agenda is one. Out of curiosity, what do you say is the difference between 'LGBT ideology'

1852:

request is that it pretty much assumes the thing to be demonstrated. The bullets in the lede, for example, should not be in the lede and probably should not be in the article at all. The relevant sources in this context (like the most recently added one on the Birmingham schools issue) are ones that

1833:

The opening edits, currently as bullet points, attempt to address the issues of concern raised at the head of the article, specifically: "The topic of this article may not meet Knowledge's general notability guideline," and "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. The reason given

857:

Agreed about "making it seem real", and "reality" has changed by the hour on this currently unfocussed article that the creator wants to be solely about Poland, and reverts any contributions that are not Polish (the opening lede includes only a Polish translation), including any citations that don't

2249:

Having an article about a word or phrase is by no means a problem, and there are other such articles, but you just have to be clear pretty early on what you want the topic of the article to be, and develop it accordingly, sticking to one, or the other; mixing up the two is a recipe for disaster and

1020:

The Lead clearly needs work, and the Definition section should probably be renamed, however as per comment above, this article is still a work in progress and should perhaps be sandboxed until developed enough to publish. If you follow the discussions on the Talk Page of LGBT-free zone, you'll soon

1867:

The bullet points each represent a potential section for expansion. They summarise in point form what those who think there is such a thing as an LGBT ideology, believe it to be. Currently, construction of this barely out-of-stub article is going on in broad daylight, and can be accessed by users.

1720:

It supports the claim of a culture war, i.e. an ideological divide, between left and right factions, over LGBT rights, which in the minds of anti-lght activists cited, are themselves an ideology. Not every cited reference has to have the exact words 'LGBT ideology' in it to help understand the big

736:

I agree that this phrase lacks independent notability. The article purports to be about the phrase, but that requires sources that go in-depth about the phrase itself. Currently, there are a few examples of people using the phrase, or objecting to it, but nowhere close to what would be required to

3020:

An article titled 'LGBT ideology' should either define what it is from reliable sources, or if it cannot be defined, to show what is perceived to be, from reliable sources, in the minds of those who make the term notable by passing laws against it. Poland is miles away from being the only country

2150:

by the article creator, presumably with a personal interest in keeping it how it was, this article is back to being primarily about Poland's use of the term 'LGBT ideology'. Yet now, there is no exploration of even what the Polish public believe it to mean, nor any exploration of its use in other

1054:

Regarding your comment, I did indeed follow that discussion and was linking it here as you wrote. Regarding the existence of Roman gods: they don't have to exist to be a notable topic: only the reliable sources have to exist, and they can even be evenly split as to whether the gods exist or don't

821:

is also part of "LGBT ideology", because "Knowledge says so", even when nobody in Poland is saying that. If it turns out to be Notable and supportable, great; I don't have any problem with that. But in its current state, it seems deeply flawed, and I just think we shouldn't provide fodder for a

693:

that can be re-used here, and since a google gives 30,900,000 results in 0.40 seconds, the chances are predictably higher than zero that more can be found, if this article is parked so it can be worked on more. Russia has similar laws against LGBT ideology, and so that would be a good country to

2722:

while the usage is almost entirely Polish for now, it is quite possible in the future the phrase will be picked up in other countries. There is no other "LGBT ideology" to distinguish from, so I think it's best to keep the current title and therefore if Lithuanian or Hungarian politicians start

1124:

banner at the top of the article along with the other templates, but I think at some point, it just becomes clutter, and iirc there's a guideline recommendation somewhere to stick to the top three issues or so. I did list "unfocused" in the bullet list, and if other issues are dealt with and

655:

This article has been up only a week, and still needs beefing up in terms of which countries, other than Poland manifest an LGBT ideology. The Definition paragraph is likewise a work in progress, and perhaps would fit a different section title, but it does background the tensions. In terms of

2585:

Discrimination and constructive discrimination relate to legal rights. If a minority within a community has special laws written about them that the majority do not, then that is a curtailment of rights. The two go hand in hand. For example, you could write a law that says "Jews may not kill

2685:

article, which is essentially about the conspiracy theory in the United States, I believe there is no question of the Notability of an article focused on Poland, on the equivalent topic. My sense (not reading Polish) is that the uses of "LGBT ideology" discourse are not limited to the LGBT

2874:

is, or what people believe it to be. The author should have made it clear in the Talk page from the very beginning that its focus was to be only about Poland's use of the title term. With such a limited scope, this article should be repatriated with the article that spawned it, viz.

2964:

outside Poland" cannot even be described without SYNTH, as far as I can tell. I understand the legalistic argument for not restricting the topic in the title, but would rather IAR than see an article develop that will be so well-constructed as a target for OR and for POV crusading.

2647:, on the basis there is "no consensus" for it. The fact no-one else proposed removing it, and several editors contributed to it, is implicit consensus for it to remain. What consensus can you show for the deletion of this entire section? If none, then surely this amounts to 1827:

This is why the article needs to go into draft namespace. One can only address one issue at a time, and it's not helped by having to continually respond to naysaying reversals while it's under construction, without any helpful suggestions for better sources or for improved

2085:

do not apply. If you are doing it in the spirit of collaboration and respect for other editors' opinions, I think that's a fine motivation, but you won't be stepping on my toes, if you move it unilaterally. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying, "Thanks for asking."

1803:

In addition, to be included in the article at all, each bullet should be supported by at least one source stating that the "critics of LGBT ideology" actually make the allegations made. Right now we have certain bullets with no RS support, and other bullets where we know

775:

Since a great deal of unpaid work goes into creating articles like this, it is surely better to try and improve it, than to delete as the first option within a week of its creation. This article went up to fill a defintion gap for LGBT ideology that became apparent in

627:

is, and it's prohibited. Rather than going way out on a limb trying to draw inferences from articles you think "equate the two", if this were a real topic, why is it that one cannot find five, solid sources that all say, "LGBT ideology is <something-something:

1872:

is not real, doesn't mean it's not notable enough to have an article written about it. LGBT ideology is all over the news. This article isn't necessarily about what LGBT ideology is, it's about what people think it is. Even if it's a conspiracy theory, like the

2842:, it's not just the examples; there's a concern that due to Knowledge's outsize influence on the internet, that an article about a nascent concept or ideology or term, could have undue influence in the RW if our article is not ready for prime time. Call it the 2701:'LGBT ideology in Poland' would more appropriately be the heading of a section within this article, if other countries with the equivalent concept could be included. Otherwise if it is remain solely about Poland's use of the term, then it should be merged with 590:

Not really, it's true that most of the references are from Poland, but not all the Polish references are about the "LGBT free zones". Please see Polish-language article draft linked above for more significant coverage from Poland, including long list of

2629:? And what is LGBT ideology? After your blanket reversions, this article now doesn't even try to define it. Moreover, the entire article is now back to being centred entirely in Poland, right from the opening line which gives only a Polish translation. 1308:

apply to it. Nevertheless, this article definitely does not exist in a vaccuum, and some information about related articles and Talk page discussions may be helpful. Most of the prior history (I believe; I'm still learning about it) is at the article

431:

There seems to be a assumption in the current version that if some source says something about, say, "gay ideology", then, bingo! we have something about "LGBT ideology" because "gay" is the "G" in LGBT. But that's not how it works; that is pure

3471:

Responded there, in support. In my view, that discussion is now the proper venue for continuing this, so I'm adding the following "moved" link, but if anyone believes there's a benefit for having two separate discussions, feel free to remove it.

2822:

Buidhe, I appreciate that the examples have been added in the body, not the lede, and even in chronological order. ;) However, they are currently two sentences in a fairly long article and do not clearly contribute to its coherence or focus.

1025:

exists only in the minds of opponents of LGBT rights. Just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article published about it. There's never been incontrovertible proof that the Roman or Greek or Christian gods exist.

3088:

article, but the current article is more specific in placing its focus on the conspiracy theory concerning "LGBT ideology" rather than the broader topic of Opposition to LGBT rights (which, in the case of Poland, would also include the

822:

developing concept, definition, ideology, or whatever it is (or isn't) by prematurely throwing stuff at the wall, while we figure out what it is, or if it's anything at all. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm rambling, a little...

640:

for example, which without looking at them, is almost certainly what they are about. If you believe that any of the references from the long list are actually about *this* topic, please point me at them, so I can have a look. Thanks,

2250:

endless edit-warring. That is, is the article about "LGBT ideology" (which would involve discussions about what it means, what some of the ideologies are, leading proponents, what their impact is, whereas an article about the phrase

436:: an editor making assumptions or deductions based on what several articles might be saying, while no single one of them supports what the editor asserts in the article. As editors, we cannot draw conclusions about what *either* 858:

include the precise sequence of letters "L G B T I d e o l o g y". Synonyms are not allowed. Other countries with comparable laws are not allowed. Moving this article to Draft as you intimated or merging it back into its parent,

3173:

is a slur, which then caught media attention, and had numerous articles written about it in news and other media. As far as that goes, it's somewhat analogous to what happened in Poland with President Duda and

491: 670:

Re: 100 councils and 70 countries: great news, then there must be hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources out there about it. Pick out the best ten, and let's get them in the article. English preferred, per

525:. There are about three mentions in Google books about "LGBT ideology", including the expected references to Poland, and one about Indonesia and Malaysia. But the latter are trivial mentions, and do not meet 2555:

No. ILGA-Europe issues a report covering every country in Europe each year. Their report is just on strictly legal rights and has nothing to with LGBT ideology or the zones (which do not affect legal rights).

2307:, but this is a relatively minor point of style, so I wouldn't worry about it now. On the other hand, what the article topic is, is completely central to further development, and should be decided rapidly. 448:, there is such a thing as "LGBT ideology", and the former is a subset of the latter. Absent a source that makes a claim about "LGBT ideology", we can't say anything at all about it. If we cannot find a 2121:

I think we have improve the article significantly by trimming sources that don't mention LGBT ideology, while adding additional sources and incidents that do discuss it. Note, most sources are in Polish.

1938:

It's related, yes. If you can find sources saying LGBT ideology is the same as homosexual agenda, then you should propose merger. Otherwise, sources discussing "homosexual agenda" should go on the

2254:

would be more about attitudes toward the phrase, comments about the phrase, history of the phrase, and so on, as opposed to comments and sources about the underlying "ideology", whatever it is.

1920:. This article currently relates only to Poland, but it should be expanded to other countries with similar laws, that don't necessarily use the precise phrase 'LGBT ideology', for example the 1808:

makes the indicated claim but not that those doing so are adherents of the "LGBT ideology" thesis. Without this last point being made for a specified bullet, its inclusion in this article is

1616:

for now, so editors can work on it in peace (ideally without patronising feedback such as "This is not the way we are supposed to write articles.") until it's presentable to the readership.

1055:

exist. As long as those sources exist, it's notable. If they don't, it isn't. The truth of the matter is entirely immaterial. Not opposed to sandboxing (by that I assume you mean, making a

428:" The sources in the article and the content relying on them might be fine in some other article, but not in this one; at least, not as long as this article is entitled "LGBT ideology". 410:. There are twenty references, but with the exception of four that are about the Polish issue, the others are about other things, like "gender ideology", and not about "LGBT ideology". 2770:

is a term that applies universally, but somehow mysteriously the key examples in the lede and the article are from Poland. This is because, according to the available reliable sources,

2290:

in mind as you go. This article currently appears to be a about a phrase; several sections and the (current) wording of the lead now support that. Is that how you view this article?

2100:

As I have said previously, I do not oppose this proposed dratification, although I am agnostic as to whether it is likely to produce a policy-compliant article any more efficiently.

1538: 572: 1877:, it is still notable. If this article is moved to Draft namespace, then the sections can be built and the bullet points re-edited to fit as necessary. Please vote for this below. 3361:, and since that too has been determined to be only about Poland, and all other instances reverted every time they are added, that article should be renamed (for the 9th time) to 3357:

Since this so-called 'LGBT ideology' article has now been forced to be solely about Poland, and there is only a Polish translation offered in the lede, then it should be moved to

1670:. While interesting, neither of these references refer to "LGBT ideology" at all, and the relationship between this sentence (and its sources) and this article's topic is at best 2600:

I did not label anything vandalism. What you say isn't wrong, but to include it you have to find sources that tie it to LGBT ideology, LGBT as an ideology, or similar to avoid

544:

in Malaysia and Indonesia (or other countries) can be discovered, then perhaps the article could be recast that way. But in its current presentation, there's no there there.

417:

has fully four citations to reliable sources attached to it, and yet not one of them is about "LGBT ideology". They are valid sources for other topics, but not for this topic.

3119:, and the article body should be in agreement about whether this is an article about the concept or the phrase, and once that is established, style it correctly. See section 2926:

wouldn't need to be moved. Whether or not the content ends up being entirely about Poland, or not, it wouldn't need renaming. (Once the article reached 100k and merited a

2059:, but I think it's a good one, and unless some glaring objection to it is added later that I hadn't considered, I support Trystan's proposal, or codicil let's say, as well. 753:

and elsewhere. ("Is homosexuality innate? This survey and NARTH say no, but Lady Gaga says yes. Who's right?") Some of the subsequent sections may be able to be included at

2766:

is the current version of the article. The lede has currently been trimmed of cruft, but from this version (and all previous versions I've looked at), one would think that

1796:

None of the bulleted claims made by adherents of the "LGBT ideology" conspiracy theory are supported in the article body, so they are therefore not DUE in the lede, per

3262:" as a standalone article because it's so essential, or different from related articles, or so likely to expand, that it shouldn't be part of some larger article about 675:, but if no English source are available, then foreign ones are okay, although if it's as prevalent as you say, one would think there would be tons of them in English. 485: 3203: 3303:

would be a good target. However, if it is to remain solely about Poland (with only a Polish translation of the term in the lede), then the article that spawned it,

3191: 2323:

concept, not the word, and section "History" is about both. The topic of this article needs to be hammered out, before you can really proceed in any coherent way.

3543: 2530:, also reverted are relevant because they are a global voice with a relationship with the UN and this is a direct result of the announcment of LGBT-free zones. 2004:, draft namespace is a better place to be peacefully and co-operatively building this article, and should obviate time-wasting edit wars. Please write below, 1271: 3548: 2257:

For an example of an article about a word or phrase, which is also on an LGBT-related theme, and also is a bit of a hot button just as LGBT ideology is, see

623:

Neither of the two links you just offered even contains the term "LGBT ideology"; you are drawing inferences to "equate the two", and *that* is exactly what

1219: 3518: 689:

There are citations of the use of the term 'LGBT ideology' by the Polish councils and the Polish President in the article which spawned this one, i.e.

3553: 3538: 3195: 636:

The fact that a Polish article has a long list of sources might indeed be relevant, but only if they are about this topic, not some other topic, like

261: 3558: 3211: 2183:" section may provide the best evidence yet of notability. However, there's a subtle trap here (or perhaps "issue" is a better word) involving the 1021:

see that no-one can define exactly what LGBT ideology actually is. That's how this article came to be, Maybe LGBT ideology doesn't exist, or like a

3523: 2437: 1089:

makes more sense than deleting it a week after it went up, and perhaps should have been done in the first place, until it was ready to publish to

109: 3199: 2275:

is also about a word, not an ideology, or a community, or a subculture, and so on; the "History" section there is about the history of the word

3563: 3528: 2339:

Polish justice ministry "counteracting crimes related to the violation of freedom of conscience committed under the influence of LGBT ideology"

1634:, while in some generic sense true, is inappropriately sourced (to legal scholarship), of unclear relevance and manifestly UNDUE for the lede. 633:

enough yet by reliable sources to be able to even come up with a reliable definition. Either way, it's not notable enough for an article here.

3513: 2214:

Use–mention can be confusing the first time one comes across it, but you can't beat the "cheese" illustration given in the article about it:

3406:

Also oppose merging with LGBT-free zones because it is about a wider phenomenon and would introduce unfocused information to that article. (

3147:

Notability is a minimum bar for having an article, but regardless whether something is notable or not, there are other considerations about

3533: 252: 232: 3299:

Agree entirely with this, and all your other points in this Talk thread. In its present state, this article should not be standalone, and

3182:" has significant MSM attention, and not just trivial mentions, but signficant treatment. It's easy to come up with articles about this 1585:, so it really needs to be moved down to the article body even if it can be sourced. Right now it is somewhere in the Bermuda triangle of 597: 3187: 1688:

There's a citation to an article in the New Yorker, called 'The Right Wing’s War on the L.G.B.T.Q. Community' that supports this claim.

345: 3219: 1737:

divide, between left and right factions, over LGBT rights, which in the minds of anti-lgbt activists cited, are themselves an ideology

452:(preferably three or more) that makes an unequivocal case specifically about "LGBT ideology", then it doesn't belong in this article. 105: 95: 58: 3226:

has significant coverage in the article, such as a whole section or many paragraphs, without being the central point of the article.

1702:

But said article doesn't refer to "LGBT ideology" at all, in any way, so it doesn't really support inclusion of this sentence in the

1668:

LGBT rights have also been linked to a broader, socialist or liberal agenda, in a culture war with the political right and far right

761:, but it is all very disjointed. On the whole, there isn't anything here that would make me hesitate to support outright deletion.-- 540:

The content on gender ideology can be moved somewhere, if a good target for it can be found. If sufficient non-trivial mentions of

193: 384: 3084:

as the governing policy, whereby the phrase should be presented in italics rather than quotation marks. I have no problem with an

600: 1874: 2463: 3071: 2081:

can't. This would be a namespace change, not an article-title change, therefore, afaict, rules about seeking consensus before

1337: 3254:" any different from "Mexican rapists", a derogatory phrase attached to a phobic attitude towards a minority group? And does 3235:". Yet there is no article. Perhaps no one has gotten around to it. Perhaps it was decided that this slur, although notable, 3307:

could be where it belongs. That was been renamed twice, and should perhaps be renamed again, to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland'.

2412:"Kuriozalny projekt finansowany przez Fundusz Sprawiedliwości. Chodzi o przestępstwa „popełniane pod wpływem ideologii LGBT"" 1204: 336: 300: 2724: 2560:

The other things you added may be good inclusions... IF you can find a source which directly ties them to "LGBT ideology". (

506: 2748:

What is 'LGBT ideology' per se, and why do sources have to include that exact sequence of letters to be able to be cited?

780:

discussions, however it is being worked on 'in harness'. A more constructive option to speedy deletion is to move it to a

473: 3207: 3436: 3411: 2806: 2732: 2609: 2565: 2356: 2348: 2127: 1947: 1897: 1758: 1411: 607: 184: 148: 33: 3161: 2287: 2184: 1570:

added a new section to the lede about links between "LGBT ideology" and "liberal ideology", and after I challenged it,

1245: 1179: 3085: 3055: 1508: 2386: 2152: 1965: 1921: 1487: 1048: 2263:. This article is about a word; the history of the word, arguments about the word, the "Slur debate", and so on. 3362: 2843: 1797: 1582: 1533: 1529: 551:, where discussion about whether that article should be called, "LGBT ideology-free zones" became very lively at 974: 2727:, because there is no other homosexual agenda to confuse with (and occasional usages in UK, other countries). ( 2705:

which gave birth to this article in the first place, and 'in Poland' should be appended to that title instead.

637: 467: 2499:

who created the article to fill a void of a definition for LGBT ideology, that became apparent in the article

2438:"Powstanie książka o rzekomych przestępstwach popełnianych pod wpływem "ideologii LGBT". Zapłaci ministerstwo" 1081:, made a while ago by someone in the Talk page of the LGBT-free zone article. For now, moving this article to 2930:, you could raise it again for that reason.) Note that I'm opposing strictly for the policy-based reasons at 571:

and a repository for "LGBT ideology"-related content from that discussion. There is also this discussion at

3498: 3428: 1426: 1381: 1351: 992: 568: 21: 3277:

If it were up to me, given the current state of the article, I think I'd vote for merging its content into

3215: 709: 3370: 3312: 3112: 3098: 3026: 2970: 2883: 2828: 2789: 2753: 2710: 2691: 2656: 2634: 2591: 2545: 2192: 2164: 2105: 2017: 1973: 1929: 1882: 1858: 1839: 1817: 1744: 1726: 1711: 1693: 1679: 1657: 1639: 1621: 1598: 1452: 1437: 1422: 1407: 1392: 1377: 1362: 1348: 1098: 1031: 917: 867: 797: 699: 661: 463: 414: 889: 754: 39: 2293:

As a post-script: editors at Knowledge frequently get confused about the proper style wrt this issue.

2191:" section after it (which I read as, "Support for the phrase") now align with the current state of the 3059: 3255: 3243:, and can be expected to wither away and disappear, and in retrospect it will appear to be more of a 3148: 2235: 953:), however neither expression is a synonym (I've unbolded them in edits subsequent to rev 973791292). 513: 2495:

in the opening lead and the ILGA citation with everything else in the section have been reverted by

2347:+ other Marxists, dangerous threat of the rainbow revolution, and the horrible fate of those facing 3453: 3240: 3067: 2927: 2915: 1518: 1513: 1498: 1476: 1090: 789: 552: 499: 392: 3388:. This would unbalance the anti-LGBT rhetoric article. Although, if the proposal is to merge this 344:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

260:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

192:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3477: 3462: 3341: 3300: 3286: 3278: 3263: 3239:

and the content would be better at one of the other related articles. Or perhaps it doesn't meet

3128: 2984: 2947: 2900: 2855: 2723:

talking about "LGBT ideology", it can be added to this article. There is also no need to move to

2411: 2328: 2312: 2091: 2064: 2001: 1548: 1140: 1129: 1118: 1068: 1042: 1008: 913: 841: 827: 750: 717: 680: 646: 580: 2286:

To avoid hopeless confusion while developing this article in draft or wherever, please keep the

1494:

other sections at that article discussed the definition as well, and pretty much came up blank:

602:

that connect "gay ideology" with "LGBT ideology", or equate the two, so that aspect is not OR. (

2979:

I see your point; I need to think about that a little while; but IAR should be used sparingly.

3392: 3366: 3327: 3308: 3094: 3022: 3011: 2966: 2939: 2892: 2879: 2824: 2798: 2785: 2749: 2706: 2687: 2682: 2652: 2630: 2587: 2541: 2508: 2160: 2156: 2101: 2077: 2039: 2013: 1969: 1939: 1925: 1913: 1878: 1854: 1835: 1813: 1740: 1722: 1707: 1689: 1675: 1653: 1635: 1617: 1594: 1198: 1094: 1027: 863: 818: 808: 793: 766: 742: 695: 657: 534: 3432: 3407: 3236: 2802: 2728: 2605: 2561: 2352: 2344: 2123: 1943: 1893: 1754: 925: 672: 630: 603: 526: 479: 3231: 3156: 3090: 2523: 1671: 1613: 1590: 1441: 1086: 1060: 973:

the trio of terms as derogatory terms, but this is not a definition. Any term on the page

785: 746: 738: 690: 624: 433: 328: 2537:(vandalism) by the article creator, without clarification, which would be welcomed here. 104:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the 2343:

Apparently this study will educate Polish citizens about the insidious influence of the

788:

where it can be properly structured, fleshed out and sourced before being reinstated to

3358: 3304: 3116: 3063: 2875: 2784:

as a general phenomenon - which no reliable source up to now has suggested that it is.

2702: 2500: 1812:

and entirely against policy, quite apart from the question of what is DUE in the lede.

1456: 1396: 1366: 1341: 1326: 1314: 1310: 777: 758: 564: 548: 530: 522: 426:

The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.

407: 388: 257: 322: 312: 294: 3507: 3473: 3458: 3352: 3337: 3282: 3124: 3081: 3007: 2980: 2943: 2896: 2851: 2512: 2324: 2308: 2188: 2180: 2087: 2060: 2052: 2031: 1917: 1869: 1703: 1649: 1609: 1544: 1480: 1136: 1082: 1078: 1064: 1056: 1022: 1004: 983:– the lead sentence has four reliable sources. None of them support a definition of 930:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is.

909: 859: 852: 837: 823: 781: 713: 676: 642: 576: 560: 176: 3399:

to Anti-LGBT rhetoric, I would support that, because then it would be more balanced.

3266:? In my opinion, I don't see a lot of difference in the calculations about whether " 836:

P.S., I forgot to add, articles in Draft space are *not* indexed by search engines.

2931: 2648: 2626: 2601: 2534: 2504: 2280: 2082: 2056: 2035: 1809: 1586: 1305: 940: 762: 449: 444:

means. Neither can we assume that if there's such a thing as "Gay ideology", then

421: 86: 2936:

it is quite possible in the future the phrase will be picked up in other countries

1630:

I don't disagree with draftification, but in any case, the revised statement that

2935: 2919: 2196: 949:– the lead sentence defines two other expressions and bolds them (presumably per 929: 425: 383:

I abandoned writing article about LGBT ideology in polish a while ago. I want to

3441: 3416: 3015: 2839: 2811: 2801:, I've now added examples from Indonesia, Malaysia, Czech Republic, and Italy. ( 2737: 2614: 2570: 2496: 2361: 2132: 1952: 1902: 1763: 1539:

Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland

950: 737:

support independent notability for a phrase; it's just padded out with a lot of

612: 3167:") a notable topic? And if it is, should it have its own article at Knowledge? 1220:"Gender Ideology: tracking its origins and meanings in current gender politics" 995:, needs to be rewritten to contain a definition of the article topic, that is, 70: 52: 3244: 1558:

The LEDE, including the bulleted allegations, and LGBT ideology and liberalism

455:

So then the question is, what *does* belong in this article? Well, let's see:

318: 166: 160: 142: 76: 2942:. If that were the only reason for it, I would change my vote to "Support". 2207:, or put in other way, this whole article is now looking more and more like 3396: 3058:

could be appropriate if the content is too large to contain in the regular

1576:

LGBT ideology has also been politically linked to a broader, liberal agenda

3452:

Regarding the oppose per "unbalanced": this isn't actually a problem. You

3229:

All of these sources contribute to establishing notability for the topic "

3120: 1632:

LGBT rights have also been politically linked to a broader, liberal agenda

1304:

This article should stand or fall on its own merits, and how the relevant

406:

This article has questionable notability. It should probably be merged to

1942:

article, and this one should be for sources discussing "LGBT ideology". (

341: 1479:

driving these moves, and one of them (I believe) led to the creation of

3107: 2294: 1180:"Poland Considers Leaving Treaty on Domestic Violence, Spurring Outcry" 3481: 3466: 3447: 3422: 3374: 3345: 3316: 3290: 3132: 3102: 3075: 3030: 2988: 2974: 2951: 2904: 2887: 2859: 2832: 2817: 2793: 2757: 2743: 2714: 2695: 2660: 2638: 2620: 2595: 2576: 2549: 2367: 2332: 2316: 2168: 2138: 2109: 2095: 2068: 2043: 2021: 1977: 1958: 1933: 1908: 1886: 1862: 1843: 1821: 1769: 1748: 1730: 1715: 1697: 1683: 1674:, and therefore it should not, by policy, be included in the article. 1661: 1643: 1625: 1602: 1581:

Also, this material is being added solely to the lede in violation of

1552: 1272:"'Gender ideology': big, bogus and coming to a fear campaign near you" 1144: 1102: 1072: 1035: 1012: 871: 845: 831: 801: 770: 721: 703: 684: 665: 650: 618: 584: 396: 244: 226: 189: 2960:

in Poland" is a notable topic with reliable secondary sources, but "

2387:"In Poland, the Rainbow Flag Is Wrapped Up in a Broader Culture War" 1593:, and almost certainly two of the three, if not the full trifecta. 529:. So really, this article should be merged, possibly piecemeal, to 3080:

This Oppose rationale seems mistaken; Mathglot has recently cited

2773:

the term currently only applies to the conspiracy theory in Poland

101: 100:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all 932:". There are multiple problems with the lead sentence currently: 547:

Note: the article appears to have been created as a spinoff from

2519: 2303: 2298: 2271: 2265: 2259: 1114:

I should just add, before I forget, that I would have added the

15: 2030:, provided the eventual version of the draft is submitted to 1472:

and ending up currently with the same name it started with.

2197:"LGBT ideology"... anti-feminist and/or anti-LGBT phrase... 1246:"Breaking the Buzzword: Fighting the "Gender Ideology" Myth" 2878:

in a merge. Outta here for good, and best of luck with it.

1648:

The word 'undue' can also be understood in lower case, per

1521:(LGBT ideology-free zone → LGBT-free zones; result: Moved.) 1509:

Talk:LGBT-free zone#Proposal to rename as 'LGBT-free zones'

2464:"IBA - IBAHRI condemns LGBTQI+ rights crackdown in Poland" 2269:

is an article about a word, not an ideology. The article

1313:. which underwent numerous renames, starting out life as " 2938:" is totally bogus, and not a reason to oppose, as it is 1135:

might float to the top, unless it's handled before that.

1047:

The issue of the definition was taken up once before at

521:

There is virtually nothing, that isn't about the Polish

2922:." And that's even when it was *only* about Poland, it 2763: 2644: 2527: 2492: 2147: 1571: 1567: 1356:

an accurate title of the zones (translated from Polish)

892:(just before my edits removing extraneous bolding) was: 3121:#Article about an ideology, vs. article about a phrase 2034:

to obtain input before moving back to article space.--

498: 2175:

Article about an ideology, vs. article about a phrase

1574:

offered new sources for the same claim: namely, that

629:". Either it doesn't exist, or it does but it's not 3143:

Notability, standalone articles, and Mexican rapists

2522:

announcement and the announcment by the Holy See on

1475:

There was also lots of discussion and some Rfc's at

559:

appears 200 times on that page). So, this article, "

340:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 256:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 188:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3336:), although a couple of them probably don't count. 2179:

Perhaps ironically, some of the references in the "

3222:; and on and on. There are many, many more, where 1608:It would be surely better to move this article to 749:view of a topic covered in much better fashion at 1666:The main part of this paragraph currently reads, 1125:maintenance templates drop off the article, then 3333: 2533:The reversion of the reversion has been labeled 2187:. That is, both the Criticism section, and the " 1519:Talk:LGBT-free zone#Requested move 5 August 2020 741:. The Background section should be deleted as a 3270:" should be a standalone article, and whether " 1431:Round-robin history swap step 3 using pageswap 1416:Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap 943:, is "LGBT ideology", but this is not defined. 939:– the topic of this article, according to the 3237:wasn't significant enough for its own article 2762:Buidhe, here's the main problem that I have. 2218: 2146:With the reversion of nearly 100% of my work 2076:– Just wanted to add that while I appreciate 1077:That was the whole point of the analogy with 512: 8: 2487:Discuss recent reversions by article creator 1892:on what sources say about "LGBT ideology". ( 1488:Talk:LGBT-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? 1401:Consensus to move away from "ideology" label 1049:Talk:LGBT-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? 963:, is actually a redirect to another article. 2920:... but should be no more precise than that 1320: 1154: 387:, since some people might find it useful, 289: 221: 137: 47: 3332:, actually, renamed eight times(!); (see 3149:whether it should be a standalone article 2526:also mentioned in the History section in 2283:, which, in fact, is a separate article. 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 379:Draft of polish article about this topic 2725:Homosexual agenda in the United States 2377: 1170: 694:start work on, to expand this article. 291: 223: 139: 49: 3046:. The proposed title would imply that 2956:The problem I have with this is that " 1850:helpful suggestions for better sources 1849: 1736: 1667: 1631: 1575: 1196: 3544:NA-importance Discrimination articles 977:could just as well be included there. 334:This redirect is within the scope of 250:This redirect is within the scope of 182:This redirect is within the scope of 19: 7: 3274:" should be a standalone article. 1525:Other possibly related discussions: 270:Knowledge:WikiProject Discrimination 3549:WikiProject Discrimination articles 2507:citations what is in their mind. A 2349:offense to their religious feelings 1996:Proposal to move to Draft Namespace 1514:Talk:LGBT-free zone#Merger proposal 273:Template:WikiProject Discrimination 38:It is of interest to the following 2847: 2012:, with your reasons, and your ID. 1499:Talk:LGBT-free zone#LGBT-free zone 1412:Draft:Move/LGBT ideology-free zone 1218:Corrêa, Sonia (11 December 2017). 118:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies 14: 3519:WikiProject LGBT studies articles 2511:doesn't have to be true, just as 1244:Reid, Graeme (10 December 2018). 121:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies 3554:Redirect-Class politics articles 3539:NA-Class Discrimination articles 3499:Talk:Anti-LGBT rhetoric § Merger 3492: 3086:Opposition to LGBT rights in ... 1875:Moon landing conspiracy theories 1735:But this is you talking about a 321: 311: 293: 243: 225: 169: 159: 141: 92:This redirect is of interest to 79: 69: 51: 20: 3559:NA-importance politics articles 2385:Santora, Marc (6 August 2020). 1916:means more or less the same as 1490:(no resolution to the question) 1270:Kane, Gillian (30 March 2018). 1178:Santora, Marc (July 27, 2020). 815:make something real, that isn't 3524:Redirect-Class Poland articles 3454:don't have to merge everything 3429:Talk:Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#Merger 3056:Opposition to LGBT rights in X 3054:, is the subject of articles. 2224:: Cheese is derived from milk. 2199:. The point is that these are 708:Actual raw count is closer to 563:", may have been created as a 354:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics 1: 3564:WikiProject Politics articles 3529:NA-importance Poland articles 533:, and possibly some of it to 413:A big, red flag, is that the 357:Template:WikiProject Politics 348:and see a list of open tasks. 264:and see a list of open tasks. 196:and see a list of open tasks. 3514:Redirect-Class LGBT articles 3334:#Backstory at other articles 1848:The problem I have with the 1563:LGBT ideology and liberalism 202:Knowledge:WikiProject Poland 3534:WikiProject Poland articles 3482:20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 3467:10:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3448:09:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3423:08:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3375:08:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 3346:09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3317:08:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3291:07:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3250:So given all that, how is " 3133:06:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3103:03:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3076:02:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 3031:09:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 2989:06:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2975:00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2952:00:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2905:00:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2888:16:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2860:00:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2833:00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2818:23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2794:15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2758:15:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2744:15:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2715:15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2696:14:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2661:15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2639:14:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2621:14:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2596:12:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2577:12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2550:12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2368:07:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2333:06:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2317:06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2297:governs; thus, the article 2169:15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2139:13:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2110:13:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2096:06:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2069:05:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2044:23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 2022:23:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1978:14:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1959:13:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1934:13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1909:12:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1887:02:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1863:00:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1844:00:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1822:00:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1770:13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1749:12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1731:04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1716:02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1698:01:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1684:00:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1662:23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1644:22:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1626:22:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1603:21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1553:10:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1461:Per request and WP:SINGULAR 1300:Backstory at other articles 1145:05:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1103:17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1073:10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1036:10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1013:09:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 872:07:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 846:23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 832:23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 802:17:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 771:13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 722:02:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 704:12:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 685:10:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 666:10:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 651:09:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 619:08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 585:08:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 397:21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 205:Template:WikiProject Poland 3580: 3490: 3052:the phrase "LGBT ideology" 2625:Then what did you mean by 2418:(in Polish). 5 August 2020 2153:Russian gay propaganda law 2051:– I hadn't considered the 1966:Russian gay propaganda law 1922:Russian gay propaganda law 1203:: CS1 maint: url-status ( 991:The lead, or at least the 975:List of LGBT-related slurs 253:WikiProject Discrimination 3363:LGBT-free zones in Poland 3093:, thus implying a merge. 2844:Knowledge observer effect 2209:an article about a phrase 1753:This article might help ( 1534:#Merge from LGBT ideology 1530:Talk:Anti-gender movement 1483:as a standalone article. 306: 238: 154: 64: 46: 2181:#Criticism of the phrase 1532:– a merge discussion at 918:opponents of LGBT rights 638:LGBT ideology-free zones 96:WikiProject LGBT studies 3427:See formal proposal at 3154:Here's an analogy: is " 2643:You have also reverted 2515:doesn't have to exist. 2491:The bullet points from 2288:use–mention distinction 2185:use–mention distinction 1427:LGBT ideology-free zone 1382:LGBT ideology-free zone 1352:LGBT ideology-free zone 1306:policies and guidelines 569:LGBT ideology-free zone 276:Discrimination articles 2245: 2151:contexts, such as the 922: 3258:argue for including " 2934:; the argument that " 1504:and these proposals: 894: 755:LGBT rights in Poland 745:; it prevents a very 631:covered significantly 108:or contribute to the 2681:After reviewing the 2673:Proposed new title: 2234:is derived from the 1371:name used in English 969:– the lead sentence 959:– one of the terms, 888:The lead as of rev. 337:WikiProject Politics 3062:articles, surely? – 2195:which starts out, " 2083:controversial moves 1792:The bulleted claims 1477:Talk:LGBT-free zone 1446:Per move discussion 1051:without resolution. 553:Talk:LGBT-free zone 3301:Anti-LGBT rhetoric 3279:Anti-LGBT rhetoric 3264:anti-LGBT rhetoric 3115:, the rest of the 2391:The New York Times 2055:idea mentioned by 1798:WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY 1583:WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY 1378:‎February 26, 2020 1363:‎February 26, 2020 1250:Human Rights Watch 1184:The New York Times 751:Sexual orientation 573:WP:NPOV Archive 84 185:WikiProject Poland 34:content assessment 3393:homosexual agenda 3184:as the main topic 3165:(campaign phrase) 2683:Homosexual agenda 2509:conspiracy theory 2301:should be styled 2157:homosexual agenda 1940:homosexual agenda 1914:Homosexual agenda 1469: 1468: 1349:February 25, 2020 1296: 1295: 1046: 967:lack of precision 914:anti-LGBT phrases 819:homosexual agenda 535:Homosexual agenda 440:means, *or* what 376: 375: 372: 371: 368: 367: 360:politics articles 288: 287: 284: 283: 220: 219: 216: 215: 136: 135: 132: 131: 3571: 3496: 3495: 3444: 3419: 3356: 3331: 3060:LGBT rights in X 3019: 2937: 2921: 2814: 2740: 2617: 2573: 2540:Please discuss. 2479: 2478: 2476: 2474: 2460: 2454: 2453: 2451: 2449: 2434: 2428: 2427: 2425: 2423: 2408: 2402: 2401: 2399: 2397: 2382: 2364: 2345:Frankfurt School 2198: 2135: 1955: 1905: 1766: 1453:‎August 13, 2020 1325:move history at 1321: 1287: 1286: 1284: 1282: 1267: 1261: 1260: 1258: 1256: 1241: 1235: 1234: 1232: 1230: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1202: 1194: 1192: 1190: 1175: 1155: 1134: 1128: 1123: 1117: 1059:?) or moving to 1040: 993:WP:FIRSTSENTENCE 931: 926:MOS:LEADSENTENCE 856: 812: 615: 517: 516: 502: 427: 362: 361: 358: 355: 352: 331: 326: 325: 315: 308: 307: 297: 290: 278: 277: 274: 271: 268: 247: 240: 239: 229: 222: 210: 209: 206: 203: 200: 179: 174: 173: 172: 163: 156: 155: 145: 138: 126: 125: 122: 119: 116: 89: 84: 83: 82: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 25: 24: 16: 3579: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3493: 3442: 3417: 3350: 3325: 3268:Mexican rapists 3260:Mexican rapists 3232:Mexican rapists 3224:Mexican rapists 3180:Mexican rapists 3178:". The phrase " 3171:Mexican rapists 3163:Mexican rapists 3157:Mexican rapists 3145: 3113:WP:LEADSENTENCE 3091:LGBT-free zones 3005: 2846:. More on this 2812: 2738: 2679: 2615: 2571: 2524:gender ideology 2489: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2472: 2470: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2447: 2445: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2421: 2419: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2395: 2393: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2362: 2341: 2193:WP:LEADSENTENCE 2177: 2133: 1998: 1953: 1903: 1794: 1764: 1565: 1560: 1470: 1442:LGBT-free zones 1438:August 13, 2020 1338:August 14, 2019 1329: 1302: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1280: 1278: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1254: 1252: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1228: 1226: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1195: 1188: 1186: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1160: 1152: 1132: 1126: 1121: 1115: 961:gender ideology 906:gender ideology 886: 850: 806: 691:LGBT-free zones 613: 523:LGBT-free zones 459: 450:reliable source 415:WP:LEADSENTENCE 404: 381: 359: 356: 353: 350: 349: 329:Politics portal 327: 320: 275: 272: 269: 266: 265: 208:Poland articles 207: 204: 201: 198: 197: 175: 170: 168: 123: 120: 117: 114: 113: 85: 80: 78: 12: 11: 5: 3577: 3575: 3567: 3566: 3561: 3556: 3551: 3546: 3541: 3536: 3531: 3526: 3521: 3516: 3506: 3505: 3491: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3469: 3404: 3401: 3400: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3359:LGBT-free zone 3320: 3319: 3305:LGBT-free zone 3144: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3050:, rather than 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2876:LGBT-free zone 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2777: 2760: 2717: 2703:LGBT-free zone 2678: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2641: 2580: 2579: 2558: 2556: 2501:LGBT-free zone 2488: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2468:www.ibanet.org 2455: 2429: 2403: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2247: 2246: 2244: 2243: 2225: 2176: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2141: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2071: 2046: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1830: 1829: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1706:article here. 1589:unsourced, or 1564: 1561: 1559: 1556: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1523: 1522: 1516: 1511: 1502: 1501: 1492: 1491: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1457:LGBT-free zone 1449: 1434: 1419: 1404: 1397:LGBT-free zone 1389: 1374: 1367:LGBT-free zone 1359: 1345: 1342:LGBT-free zone 1331: 1330: 1327:LGBT-free zone 1324: 1319: 1315:LGBT-free zone 1311:LGBT-free zone 1301: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1262: 1236: 1210: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1052: 989: 988: 978: 964: 954: 944: 885: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 834: 778:LGBT-free zone 759:LGBT-free zone 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 634: 594: 592: 565:back formation 549:LGBT-free zone 531:LGBT-free zone 519: 518: 422:Article titles 420:The policy on 408:LGBT-free zone 403: 400: 380: 377: 374: 373: 370: 369: 366: 365: 363: 346:the discussion 333: 332: 316: 304: 303: 298: 286: 285: 282: 281: 279: 267:Discrimination 262:the discussion 258:Discrimination 248: 236: 235: 233:Discrimination 230: 218: 217: 214: 213: 211: 194:the discussion 181: 180: 164: 152: 151: 146: 134: 133: 130: 129: 127: 91: 90: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3576: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3552: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3540: 3537: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3522: 3520: 3517: 3515: 3512: 3511: 3509: 3500: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3455: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3421: 3420: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3383: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3329: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3275: 3273: 3272:LGBT ideology 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3256:WP:PAGEDECIDE 3253: 3252:LGBT ideology 3248: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3227: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3204:Rolling Stone 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3176:LGBT ideology 3172: 3168: 3166: 3164: 3159: 3158: 3152: 3150: 3142: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3048:LGBT ideology 3045: 3042: 3041: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2962:LGBT ideology 2959: 2958:LGBT ideology 2955: 2954: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2869: 2868: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2815: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2782:LGBT ideology 2778: 2775: 2774: 2769: 2768:LGBT ideology 2765: 2761: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2718: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2684: 2676: 2675:LGBT ideology 2672: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2557: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2536: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2514: 2513:haunted house 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2486: 2469: 2465: 2459: 2456: 2443: 2439: 2433: 2430: 2417: 2413: 2407: 2404: 2392: 2388: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2289: 2284: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2268: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2255: 2253: 2252:LGBT ideology 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2117: 2116: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1995: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918:LGBT ideology 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1906: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1870:haunted house 1866: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1801: 1799: 1791: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704:LGBT ideology 1701: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1562: 1557: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1520: 1517: 1515: 1512: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1482: 1481:LGBT ideology 1478: 1473: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423:July 26, 2020 1420: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408:July 26, 2020 1405: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393:July 26, 2020 1390: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1299: 1277: 1273: 1266: 1263: 1251: 1247: 1240: 1237: 1225: 1221: 1214: 1211: 1206: 1200: 1185: 1181: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1157: 1156: 1149: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1131: 1120: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079:haunted house 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1043:edit conflict 1039: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1023:haunted house 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001:LGBT ideology 998: 997:LGBT ideology 994: 986: 985:LGBT ideology 982: 979: 976: 972: 968: 965: 962: 958: 957:mix of topics 955: 952: 948: 947:lack of focus 945: 942: 941:article title 938: 937:no definition 935: 934: 933: 927: 924:According to 921: 919: 915: 911: 910:anti-feminist 907: 903: 899: 898:LGBT ideology 893: 891: 883: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860:LGBT ideology 854: 849: 848: 847: 843: 839: 835: 833: 829: 825: 820: 816: 810: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 774: 773: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 735: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 692: 688: 687: 686: 682: 678: 674: 669: 668: 667: 663: 659: 654: 653: 652: 648: 644: 639: 635: 632: 626: 622: 621: 620: 617: 616: 609: 605: 601: 599: 595: 593: 589: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561:LGBT ideology 558: 554: 550: 545: 543: 542:LGBT ideology 538: 536: 532: 528: 524: 515: 511: 508: 505: 501: 497: 493: 490: 487: 484: 481: 478: 475: 472: 469: 465: 462: 461:Find sources: 458: 457: 456: 453: 451: 447: 443: 439: 438:LGBT ideology 435: 429: 423: 418: 416: 411: 409: 401: 399: 398: 394: 390: 386: 378: 364: 347: 343: 339: 338: 330: 324: 319: 317: 314: 310: 309: 305: 302: 299: 296: 292: 280: 263: 259: 255: 254: 249: 246: 242: 241: 237: 234: 231: 228: 224: 212: 195: 191: 187: 186: 178: 177:Poland portal 167: 165: 162: 158: 157: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 128: 124:LGBT articles 111: 107: 103: 99: 98: 97: 88: 77: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 23: 18: 17: 3440: 3415: 3389: 3385: 3367:Chrisdevelop 3328:Chrisdevelop 3309:Chrisdevelop 3296: 3276: 3271: 3267: 3259: 3251: 3249: 3241:WP:SUSTAINED 3230: 3228: 3223: 3188:The Guardian 3183: 3179: 3175: 3170: 3169: 3162: 3155: 3153: 3146: 3095:Newimpartial 3051: 3047: 3043: 3023:Chrisdevelop 3012:Newimpartial 2967:Newimpartial 2961: 2957: 2928:WP:SIZESPLIT 2923: 2916:WP:PRECISION 2911: 2893:Chrisdevelop 2880:Chrisdevelop 2870: 2825:Newimpartial 2810: 2799:Newimpartial 2786:Newimpartial 2781: 2772: 2771: 2767: 2750:Chrisdevelop 2736: 2719: 2707:Chrisdevelop 2688:Newimpartial 2680: 2674: 2653:Chrisdevelop 2631:Chrisdevelop 2613: 2588:Chrisdevelop 2569: 2542:Chrisdevelop 2539: 2532: 2517: 2490: 2471:. Retrieved 2467: 2458: 2446:. Retrieved 2441: 2432: 2420:. Retrieved 2415: 2406: 2394:. Retrieved 2390: 2380: 2372: 2360: 2342: 2302: 2292: 2285: 2281:LGBT history 2279:; not about 2276: 2270: 2264: 2258: 2256: 2251: 2248: 2239: 2231: 2227: 2221: 2213: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2178: 2161:Chrisdevelop 2143: 2131: 2118: 2102:Newimpartial 2078:Chrisdevelop 2073: 2048: 2027: 2014:Chrisdevelop 2009: 2005: 1999: 1970:Chrisdevelop 1951: 1926:Chrisdevelop 1901: 1879:Chrisdevelop 1855:Newimpartial 1836:Chrisdevelop 1814:Newimpartial 1805: 1802: 1795: 1762: 1741:Newimpartial 1723:Chrisdevelop 1708:Newimpartial 1690:Chrisdevelop 1676:Newimpartial 1654:Chrisdevelop 1636:Newimpartial 1618:Chrisdevelop 1595:Newimpartial 1580: 1566: 1543: 1524: 1503: 1493: 1474: 1471: 1460: 1445: 1430: 1415: 1400: 1385: 1370: 1355: 1303: 1279:. Retrieved 1276:the Guardian 1275: 1265: 1253:. Retrieved 1249: 1239: 1227:. Retrieved 1224:Engenderings 1223: 1213: 1187:. Retrieved 1183: 1173: 1166: 1113: 1095:Chrisdevelop 1091:WP:MAINSPACE 1028:Chrisdevelop 1000: 996: 990: 984: 980: 970: 966: 960: 956: 946: 936: 923: 905: 902:gay ideology 901: 897: 895: 887: 884:Rewrite lead 864:Chrisdevelop 814: 809:Chrisdevelop 794:Chrisdevelop 790:WP:MAINSPACE 696:Chrisdevelop 658:Chrisdevelop 611: 556: 546: 541: 539: 520: 509: 503: 495: 488: 482: 476: 470: 460: 454: 445: 442:gay ideology 441: 437: 430: 419: 412: 405: 385:link it here 382: 335: 251: 183: 115:LGBT studies 106:project page 94: 93: 87:LGBTQ portal 59:LGBT studies 40:WikiProjects 29: 2497:User:buidhe 2444:(in Polish) 2236:Old English 2002:WP:DRAFTIFY 1087:Draft space 1061:Draft space 951:MOS:BOLDSYN 786:Draft space 710:160 results 486:free images 3508:Categories 3245:vogue word 3186:, such as 2940:WP:CRYSTAL 2416:Bezprawnik 2373:References 1354:(summary: 1159:References 1083:User draft 1057:User draft 782:User draft 743:WP:POVFORK 596:There are 555:(the word 446:ipso facto 402:Notability 110:discussion 3497:Moved to 3397:gay mafia 3212:Bloomberg 3064:Roscelese 2677:in Poland 2645:this edit 2528:this edit 2493:this edit 2473:20 August 2448:20 August 2422:20 August 2396:20 August 1828:delivery. 1572:this edit 1568:This edit 1386:BANREVERT 1130:unfocused 1119:unfocused 981:unsourced 971:describes 890:973791292 673:WP:NONENG 527:WP:SIGCOV 389:Matinee71 3474:Mathglot 3459:Mathglot 3353:Mathglot 3338:Mathglot 3283:Mathglot 3196:Politico 3160:" (or, " 3151:or not. 3125:Mathglot 3123:above. 3072:contribs 3008:Mathglot 2981:Mathglot 2944:Mathglot 2897:Mathglot 2852:Mathglot 2325:Mathglot 2309:Mathglot 2201:mentions 2189:#Support 2088:Mathglot 2061:Mathglot 1806:somebody 1721:picture. 1672:WP:SYNTH 1614:WP:DRAFT 1591:WP:UNDUE 1545:Mathglot 1336:created 1281:5 August 1255:5 August 1229:5 August 1199:cite web 1189:July 31, 1137:Mathglot 1065:Mathglot 1005:Mathglot 916:used by 853:Mathglot 838:Mathglot 824:Mathglot 739:WP:SYNTH 714:Mathglot 677:Mathglot 643:Mathglot 625:WP:SYNTH 591:sources. 577:Mathglot 557:ideology 434:WP:SYNTH 351:Politics 342:politics 301:Politics 30:redirect 3297:Support 3216:Nat Geo 3208:NY Post 3117:WP:LEAD 3108:MOS:WAW 3014:, and 2871:Support 2295:MOS:WAW 2228:Mention 2144:Support 2074:Comment 2057:Trystan 2049:Support 2036:Trystan 2028:Support 2006:Support 1347:moved 912:and/or 908:", are 904:" and " 763:Trystan 492:WP refs 480:scholar 424:says: " 3443:buidhe 3418:buidhe 3386:Oppose 3082:WP:WAW 3044:Oppose 3016:Buidhe 2914:– per 2912:Oppose 2840:buidhe 2813:buidhe 2780:about 2739:buidhe 2720:Oppose 2616:buidhe 2572:buidhe 2442:TOK FM 2363:buidhe 2232:Cheese 2134:buidhe 2119:Oppose 2053:WP:AFC 2032:WP:AFC 2010:Oppose 1954:buidhe 1904:buidhe 1765:buidhe 1650:WP:AGF 1610:WP:USD 1451:moved 1436:moved 1421:moved 1406:moved 1391:moved 1376:moved 1361:moved 614:buidhe 464:Google 199:Poland 190:Poland 149:Poland 36:scale. 2932:WP:AT 2924:still 2848:above 2649:WP:VD 2627:WP:TW 2602:WP:OR 2535:WP:TW 2505:WP:RS 2238:word 1810:WP:OR 1587:WP:OR 747:undue 507:JSTOR 468:books 102:LGBTQ 28:This 3478:talk 3463:talk 3371:talk 3342:talk 3313:talk 3287:talk 3200:Vice 3192:WaPo 3129:talk 3099:talk 3068:talk 3027:talk 2985:talk 2971:talk 2948:talk 2901:talk 2884:talk 2856:talk 2829:talk 2790:talk 2764:This 2754:talk 2711:talk 2692:talk 2657:talk 2635:talk 2592:talk 2546:talk 2520:ILGA 2518:The 2475:2020 2450:2020 2424:2020 2398:2020 2329:talk 2313:talk 2304:TERF 2299:TERF 2277:LGBT 2272:LGBT 2266:TERF 2260:TERF 2240:ċēse 2205:uses 2203:not 2165:talk 2148:here 2106:talk 2092:talk 2065:talk 2040:talk 2018:talk 2000:Per 1974:talk 1930:talk 1883:talk 1859:talk 1840:talk 1818:talk 1745:talk 1727:talk 1712:talk 1694:talk 1680:talk 1658:talk 1640:talk 1622:talk 1599:talk 1549:talk 1340:as " 1283:2020 1257:2020 1231:2020 1205:link 1191:2020 1150:Refs 1141:talk 1099:talk 1069:talk 1032:talk 1009:talk 900:", " 868:talk 842:talk 828:talk 798:talk 767:talk 718:talk 700:talk 681:talk 662:talk 647:talk 581:talk 500:FENS 474:news 393:talk 3431:. ( 3390:and 3281:. 3220:CNN 2918:: " 2604:. ( 2351:. ( 2222:Use 2155:or 2008:or 1612:or 1459:: ( 1455:to 1440:to 1425:to 1410:to 1395:to 1380:to 1365:to 1317:": 1085:or 928:, " 784:or 757:or 712:. 628:--> 567:of 537:. 514:TWL 3510:: 3480:) 3465:) 3439:) 3435:· 3414:) 3410:· 3395:, 3373:) 3344:) 3315:) 3289:) 3247:. 3218:, 3214:, 3210:, 3206:, 3202:, 3198:, 3194:, 3190:, 3131:) 3101:) 3074:) 3070:⋅ 3029:) 3010:, 2987:) 2973:) 2950:) 2903:) 2886:) 2858:) 2850:. 2831:) 2809:) 2805:· 2792:) 2756:) 2735:) 2731:· 2713:) 2694:) 2659:) 2651:. 2637:) 2612:) 2608:· 2594:) 2568:) 2564:· 2548:) 2466:. 2440:. 2414:. 2389:. 2359:) 2355:· 2331:) 2315:) 2230:: 2211:. 2167:) 2130:) 2126:· 2108:) 2094:) 2067:) 2042:) 2020:) 1976:) 1968:? 1950:) 1946:· 1932:) 1900:) 1896:· 1885:) 1861:) 1842:) 1820:) 1800:. 1761:) 1757:· 1747:) 1729:) 1714:) 1696:) 1682:) 1660:) 1652:. 1642:) 1624:) 1601:) 1551:) 1274:. 1248:. 1222:. 1201:}} 1197:{{ 1182:. 1143:) 1133:}} 1127:{{ 1122:}} 1116:{{ 1101:) 1093:. 1071:) 1063:. 1034:) 1011:) 1003:. 870:) 844:) 830:) 800:) 792:. 769:) 720:) 702:) 683:) 664:) 649:) 610:) 606:· 598:RS 583:) 575:. 494:) 395:) 3476:( 3461:( 3437:c 3433:t 3412:c 3408:t 3369:( 3365:. 3355:: 3351:@ 3340:( 3330:: 3326:@ 3311:( 3285:( 3174:" 3127:( 3097:( 3066:( 3025:( 3018:: 3006:@ 2983:( 2969:( 2946:( 2899:( 2882:( 2854:( 2827:( 2807:c 2803:t 2788:( 2776:. 2752:( 2733:c 2729:t 2709:( 2690:( 2655:( 2633:( 2610:c 2606:t 2590:( 2566:c 2562:t 2544:( 2477:. 2452:. 2426:. 2400:. 2357:c 2353:t 2327:( 2311:( 2242:. 2163:( 2128:c 2124:t 2122:( 2104:( 2090:( 2063:( 2038:( 2016:( 1972:( 1948:c 1944:t 1928:( 1898:c 1894:t 1881:( 1857:( 1838:( 1816:( 1759:c 1755:t 1743:( 1725:( 1710:( 1692:( 1678:( 1656:( 1638:( 1620:( 1597:( 1547:( 1463:) 1448:) 1444:( 1433:) 1429:( 1418:) 1414:( 1403:) 1399:( 1388:) 1384:( 1373:) 1369:( 1358:) 1344:" 1285:. 1259:. 1233:. 1207:) 1193:. 1139:( 1097:( 1067:( 1045:) 1041:( 1030:( 1007:( 987:. 920:. 896:" 866:( 855:: 851:@ 840:( 826:( 811:: 807:@ 796:( 765:( 716:( 698:( 679:( 660:( 645:( 608:c 604:t 579:( 510:· 504:· 496:· 489:· 483:· 477:· 471:· 466:( 391:( 112:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index