LGBT additions to the Vsbattles wiki

[Antvasima]

I'm in favor of the category being added. Since my concerns with the standards have been addressed (since it seems like characters being LGBT without statements is fine), I don't have many issues as of right now. Since the topic of indexing GNC characters has come up, that's obviously good too.

Well, they do not have to make personal statements about it, but it needs to have made obvious and official in some form of reliable manner.

Also, no, we don't need a heterosexual category.

Agreed.

Q usually stands for queer or questioning, which covers a significant number of identities, but there are of course people who don't use either of those terms for themselves. LGBTQ+ would be preferable, I think.

Okay. I think that we should probably use the category title "LGBTQ Characters" then, as I personally consider it redundant to include characters that are simply not interested in sex or romance at all, as that seems like a very mismatched and quite unrelated area, especially if we are referring to children's characters such as Spongebob.

The above text is fine, but please remove the statement about being stated to be LGBTQ+. Using statements alone is a bad idea based on the reasons I gave above, and if that's what's agreed upon here, the draft should be changed accordingly.

See above. It isn't about personal character statements, it is about any form of genuinely reliable verifiable information, and no, some writer who does not own a character stating something on Twitter is not reliable regarding this any more than it is regarding other character facts, and we have official rules against using such responses.

 

[Antvasima]

Who deleted my message? It was important to the conversation. Whoever did it, please undo if possible.

I undeleted them, but it is technically derailing from the main discussion, and you are not staff, so it seems best if you (and all other non-staff) stop responding here.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Well, they do not have to make personal statements about it, but it needs to have made obvious and official in some form of reliable manner.

See above. It isn't about personal character statements, it is about any form of genuinely reliable verifiable information, and no some writer who does not own a character stating something on Twitter is not reliable regarding this any more than it is regarding other character facts, and we have official rules against using them.

Which is why I think the term 'stated' should not be used, as that does imply we are going off of statements alone. Just use 'demonstrated' or something that conveys we don't rely solely on direct statements.

Okay. I think that we should probably use the category title "LGBTQ+ Characters" then, but I personally consider it redundant to include characters that are simply not interested in sex or romance at all, as that seems like a very mismatched and quite unrelated area, especially if we are referring to children's characters such as Spongebob.

The title is fine but characters who's lack of interest in sex and romance is dictated as a part of their sexuality should still qualify. Obviously, a children's character who never engages in sex or romance wouldn't qualify for that, but there are still asexual characters in fiction that should be a part of the category (Amelia listed Judge Dredd as an example earlier in this thread).

 

[Antvasima]

Which is why I think the term 'stated' should not be used, as that does imply we are going off of statements alone. Just use 'demonstrated' or something that conveys we don't rely solely on direct statements.

"Clearly unequivocally established via some form of very reliable information, either in-story or via official statements from the people who own the characters" seems like a pretty well-defined wording draft to me.

The title is fine but characters who's lack of interest in sex and romance is dictated as a part of their sexuality should still qualify. Obviously, a children's character who never engages in sex or romance wouldn't qualify for that, but there are still asexual characters in fiction that should be a part of the category (Amelia listed Judge Dredd as an example earlier in this thread).

Judge Dredd is most likely just so extremely dedicated to his work, and paranoid about having any exploitable weaknesses, that he is uninterested in romantic liaisons for that reason. He does not seem like a good fit at all, and neither do the vast majority of other characters from stories that do not explicitly display any romance or sexually related activity whatsoever. The LGBTQ+ category would be spammed with at least 95% characters that do not remotely belong and are completely irrelevant in this context if we include them just due to not displaying any signs of sexuality.

Anyway, this is still a staff only thread, and as I have stated a few times previously, you are not alllowed to respond here anymore. This is about a wiki policy issue, and as such it is up to our staff to decide.

Also, you take up far too much time for me to constantly respond to.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, given that I already just had to remove a few troll posts in this thread, one potential problem with this category is that other trolls might add it to lots of pages where it does not belong because they find it funny, and that this will not always be discovered.

Another considerably more likely problem is that different members of this wiki will get into recurrent fights regarding whether or not some of their favoirite characters fit into this category, and I want as limited argumentative toxicity, drama, and resulting bans as possible within this community,

 

[Abstractions]

Neutral, leaning on accepting the category. (We have a lot less relevant categories such as "Orphans, Kids, etc." that don't pertain to much) but there's no need for people to require permission to make an LGBT Character profile.

 

[CosmicWreck]

I do not mind using something close to the above text for the LGBTQ category.

I thought that gender non-conformity was covered by the "Q", or would we need to add a "+" sign for that?

This has been partly answered before. Gender nonconforming individuals differ from both Q terminologies though. Particularly.

A gender nonconforming individual is just someone that doesn't follow the normal societal rules. It's still entirely possible to be nonconforming and still be cisgendered or heterosexual because they're not identifying themselves as part of the LGBT community. Tomboys, for example, are not gender conforming but that doesn't mean they're a part of the LGBT community. Crossdressers also aren't necessarily LGBT either.

Which is why I think the term 'stated' should not be used, as that does imply we are going off of statements alone. Just use 'demonstrated' or something that conveys we don't rely solely on direct statements.


The title is fine but characters who's lack of interest in sex and romance is dictated as a part of their sexuality should still qualify. Obviously, a children's character who never engages in sex or romance wouldn't qualify for that, but there are still asexual characters in fiction that should be a part of the category (Amelia listed Judge Dredd as an example earlier in this thread).

Okamaitachi canonically joins the men in the baths so idk about this.

Which is the reason why I disagree with posts like these. I'm not really an expert on this though so I don't really want to invite social conventions and morality into this anyway.

I would prefer to use the information we're given by a source or from the characters themselves than deducing based on whether or not we think a character's actions meshes with our understanding of the gender identity that we think they represent, not only because real life LGBT dynamics is kind of more complicated than that, but most importantly because they're fictional characters.

As fictional characters there is even less reason for them to act as what we think is normal for their real world counterparts because the authors cannot really be expected to know the ins and outs of what is really fitting for their gender identity and expression, or that the authors really care about such things.

Anyway, given that I already just had to remove a few troll posts in this thread, one potential problem with this category is that other trolls might add it to lots of pages where it does not belong because they find it funny, and that this will not always be discovered.

True but doesn't this happen sometimes anyway? Vegeta was once named a Yandere without permission, for example, iirc.

Another considerably more likely problem is that different members of this wiki will get into recurrent fights regarding whether or not some of their favoirite characters fit into this category, and I want as limited argumentative toxicity, drama, and resulting bans as possible within this community,

Fair. Feel free to close this thread. Although I'm sad in the face of a missed opportunity, if we can't agree even on a simple thing like using official sources now then, although it probably won't be too bad, there will probably be some hostility generated from friction of interpretations which is the very opposite of what I set out to do.

So, in summary we could always make LGBT profiles, and that's no on the LGBT category being added (unless, someone else brings it up in another thread or someone here has a better idea of implementing it).

Since no one addressed it I'm assuming my third permission, that is make LGBT topics as part of discussion threads is fine then?

 

[CurrySenpai]

I don't see the problem with adding an LGBTQ+ Category. If anything I consider this a good thing as it is inclusive and showcases a group that has been prevalent in fiction.

Sure it would take time to categorize and find all LGBTQ+ characters but I see nothing wrong with it and I even think it's worth it as I believe it is an important thing to index as well.

There should be some clear standards though as to who qualifies for the category such as official character statements or very clear demonstrations of their being a part of the LGBTQ+

Also, To the people thinking this is "Woke", having basic representation is basically the bare minimum.

 

[Kachon123]

I don't see the problem with adding an LGBTQ+ Category. If anything I consider this a good thing as it is inclusive and showcases a group that has been prevalent in fiction.

Sure it would take time to categorize and find all LGBTQ+ characters but I see nothing wrong with it and I even think it's worth it as I believe it is an important thing to index as well.

There should be some clear standards though as to who qualifies for the category such as official character statements or very clear demonstrations of their being a part of the LGBTQ+

Also, To the people thinking this is "Woke", having basic representation is basically the bare minimum.

It's a waste of space, time, and effort. This isn't about being inclusive or not. Why not add race tags, blood type tags, hair color tags, eye color tags, and more? It makes no sense. Adding LGBT+ tabs add nothing and isn't worth.

 

[Abstractions]

It's a waste of space, time, and effort.

We already have categories that do that, and I'm uncertain as to what time this actually takes up.

blood type tags

Assuming LGBT Characters is going to be one tag, your opposition to this is to propose 8 of the same tag as an appeal to what? At least with a lot of tags it's something that can be expressed visually or in personality more often than not but with this we need a specific statement of some kind, and the only place that I know that does this is MHA.

And besides, what if I bleed oil?

 

[Kachon123]

what if I bleed oil?

Oil users

 

[Abstractions]

Oil users

race tags

Race Users.

Spoiler

 

[Dereck03]

Please guys stop commenting here if ya guys are not staff or asked for permission to comment, thanks you.

 

[Agnaa]

This seems like a good idea. We have a fair few categories that are unrelated to indexing, such as one for teachers. While Promestein did delete a lot of these, the ones with a significant amount of characters were left, which I expect this to be able to meet.

• Giovanni Potage: Bisexual per WoG.
• Zora Salazar: Bisexual per WoG.
• Percival King: Asexual per WoG.
• Howie Honeyglow: Asexual per WoG.
• Suruga Kanbaru: Lesbian; the entire arc where she's introduced as having a crush on Senjougahara.
• Tsubasa Hanekawa, Second Key: Black Hanekawa's gender is a little fuzzy, as a ghost created from a dead male stray cat possessing a woman, doesn't feel weird being called a brother or a sister, and questions the point of asking what a supernatural being's gender is to begin with. (I'm not sure what to index this as in the Gender section, so some advice there would be appreciated).
• Shinobu Oshino: Bisexual; gender has absolutely no bearing on who she's attracted to.
• Nadeko Sengoku: Bisexual; fell in love with Tsukihi before falling in love with Koyomi.

Now to start nitpicking and responding to the thread.

That is, categories noting characters who are canonically considered to gay, straight, questioning, bisexual or transgendered or somehow do not follow the usual gender norms.

If you include straight characters then that'd include most of the wiki, and not be very fitting for an LGBT category.

It seems pointless unless somebody can give me a good reason as to why we should add the category which would require going to every lgbt character's profile to add the tag.

It seems like a lot of extra work

This seems utterly useless and a lot of work

i'd rather just reduce the workload

this one would be yet another that would add to the list of stuff already to be done

It's a waste of space, time, and effort.

takes time too so it would be alot of work

We're not required to add categories like this. You won't get in trouble if you don't add the "Teacher" category. And we didn't organize a staff project to add it to every relevant page. These sorts of things just get gradually done over time.

 

[Duedate8898]

I see no problem with the addition of a LGBTQ+ category. Would be neat to have

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Not a terribly necessary addition but I don't see the harm in the category.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Can we please stop derailing with these immature comments?

 

[KingTempest]

Some people gotta start getting banned. Not thread banned, banned banned

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

This is a Staff Only thread

Unless you are Staff or have permission to comment here, do not

As for the category itself, I'm neutral

 

[Antvasima]

I banned Yss for apparently giving a death threat.

As for the others, I remain extremely uncomfortable with banning people for wrongthink, even if they are being intolerant or slightly bigoted, as long as they have not engaged in legitimate hate-speech, and legitimate hate-speech generally means slurs used in a bigoted manner, or genuine "I hate you all and want you dead" sentiments, or serious threats.

Most of them come from parts of this world where LGBTQ is statistically heavily disapproved of by most of the population, and we cannot change any minds in that regard by engaging in political oppression and banning them all for being born into different cultural viewpoints.

They have the same rights to be here as everybody else. We are a very international community and cannot only allow the progressive members from western civilisation to be here and not anybody else whatsoever. We would be left with maybe 15-20% of our entire community, turn it entirely nonfunctional and dysfunctional, and help to create massive grudges, social division, and vindictive hatred in the process, instead of making an effort to have all sides try to get along, collaborate, and see that the others are not dehumanised monsters defined by a single trait or viewpoint, but rather complicated people just like themselves.

That said, if regular members derail with nonsense here, you can still ban them from this particular thread and delete their posts here.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I do not mind the concept of us creating a "LGBT Characters" or "LGBTQ Characters" category, but I would much prefer if we keep things as straightforward as possible by avoiding the "+" sign, as that would make it too complicated for most of our members to properly define, and by not including asexual characters that are simply not interested in romantic and/or sexual relations, which is a bad fit for fictional characters that are extremely commonly not shown in such situations simply due to the inherent thematics of their stories.

We need to maintain strict standards of very reliable evidence and easy to understand definitions if this is remotely going to work, and in order to avoid lots of aggressive arguments, toxicity, conflict, division, and grudges regarding which characters that should be included in the category.

 

[Antvasima]

This has been partly answered before. Gender nonconforming individuals differ from both Q terminologies though. Particularly.

A gender nonconforming individual is just someone that doesn't follow the normal societal rules. It's still entirely possible to be nonconforming and still be cisgendered or heterosexual because they're not identifying themselves as part of the LGBT community. Tomboys, for example, are not gender conforming but that doesn't mean they're a part of the LGBT community. Crossdressers also aren't necessarily LGBT either.

Well, I think that creating a separate category for gender nonconforming individuals would be far too vague, confusing, and hard to properly understand and define by most of our members, especially if we even automatically include tomboys, so that is a definitive no from me. My apologies.

 

[Antvasima]

True but doesn't this happen sometimes anyway? Vegeta was once named a Yandere without permission, for example, iirc

That is a good point.

Fair. Feel free to close this thread. Although I'm sad in the face of a missed opportunity, if we can't agree even on a simple thing like using official sources now then, although it probably won't be too bad, there will probably be some hostility generated from friction of interpretations which is the very opposite of what I set out to do.

Well, as I mentioned, the only way to realistically practically apply this change, and avoid lots of conflict about it, would be if we establish strict standards for self-evident reliable evidence before the category in question is applied, or if the Fandom staff itself has previously officially declared a judgement about a more uncertain characters, as they did with Yamato and Bridget (but pestering Fandom to constantly make judgements about characters that they know very little about is obviously not acceptable behaviour). Otherwise, personal guesswork interpretations or fanon should definitely not be allowed.

So, in summary we could always make LGBT profiles, and that's no on the LGBT category being added (unless, someone else brings it up in another thread or someone here has a better idea of implementing it).

Yes, of course. That is fine. We have plenty of LGBT character pages already in our wiki. However, you should obviously treat them like our other characters by sticking to our standard listed information sections, and not digressing into politics, for example.

Since no one addressed it I'm assuming my third permission, that is make LGBT topics as part of discussion threads is fine then?

No, that is equivalent to making discussion threads about current controversial political events or for or against specific religions, which is against our rules. It is not allowed as a main topic, as it would heavily provoke a large part of our members who are not progressive and parts of the western civilisation. I think that just creating a news and announcement thread that says "Happy Pride month" is fine, as it tries to encourage goodwill and tolerance within this community, but we should try to avoid conflict and drama as well as we are able. Global society is going through major upheavals and conflict at the moment, and we need to weather out the storm as a friendly and collaborative safe haven for everybody, not randomly throw matches into nitroglycerine tanks and think that nothing will happen.

 

[Metalballrun]

I'm deeply sorry, this is going to be the last comment I leave here. Feel free to delete it afterwards. Or punish me with a threadban if you see fit.

As for the others, I remain extremely uncomfortable with banning people for wrongthink, even if they are being intolerant or slightly bigoted, as long as they have not engaged in legitimate hate-speech.

You and the staff can follow whatever protocols you have at least, by giving these users their deserved warnings. Or checking these random accounts if they're sockpuppets.

See if they're willing to drop giving unsolicited and unproductive remarks that only serves to derail the function of this community by demeaning its other members.

Most of them come from parts of this world where LGBTQ is statistically heavily disapproved of by virtually everybody, and we cannot change any minds in that regard by engaging in political oppression and banning them all for being born into different cultural viewpoints.

Excuse me, but I come from an Asian country that is predominantly Christian or Islamic in religion, and I'm not a raging bigot.
It's perfectly possible for anyone to learn how to be a better human being even if they come from a shithole. This excuse is flimsy at best, personally speaking.

At this moment, there is nobody being 'politically' oppressed here other than the people who are affected by homophobic statements, Ant.

They have the same rights to be here as everybody else. We are a very international community and cannot only allow the progressive members from western civilisation to be here and not anybody else whatsoever.

Not all progressive members are only from the west?

We would be left with maybe 15-20% of our entire community, turn it entirely nonfunctional and dysfunctional, and help to create massive grudges, social division, and vindictive hatred in the process, instead of making an effort to have all sides try to get along, collaborate, and see that the others are not dehumanised monsters defined by a single trait or viewpoint, but rather just complicated people just like themselves.

Massive grudges, social division, and vindictive hatred that can cause nonfunction/dysfunction already exist. It's just directed at the LGBT community.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but based on your statement here, then they can also be given a message specifically constructed to inform and educate them about these topics alongside the warnings. And that if they're not willing to give it a try, then politely tell them not to engage in threads where they only plan to contribute negatively in the discussion.

It is perfectly possible to discuss sensitive topics without the nonsense.

 

[Antvasima]

Warnings are obviously fine to apply if people went over the line, and I definitely did not mean to state that remotely all of our members from, for example, the devout Islamic and orthodox Christian parts of this world are not progressive.

I am just saying that going by statistical opinion polls, most of the people living there are genuinely quite conservative regarding this issue as far as I am aware, and we cannot make this into a forum where only progressives are allowed, as it would cripply our community and cause greater grudges/hatred between different groups, rather than help them learn to get along by staying non-political and finding common ground, and I did not think that most of the comments that I and others deleted here seemed to enter into actual hate-speech territory. We cannot realistically go around and ban everybody who are the slightest bit bigoted or intolerant.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but based on your statement here, then they can also be given a message specifically constructed to inform and educate them about these topics alongside the warnings. And that if they're not willing to give it a try, then politely tell them not to engage in threads where they only plan to contribute negatively in the discussion.

This seems like a good idea in any case.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I already began to check for sockpuppets, but have not seen any duplicate IP address warnings yet.

@DarkDragonMedeus

Would you be willing to investigate our automatic sockpuppet finding page for warnings please?

 

[CosmicWreck]

Well, as I mentioned, the only way to realistically practically apply this change, and avoid lots of conflict about it, would be if we establish strict standards for self-evident reliable evidence before the category in question is applied, or if the Fandom staff itself has previously officially declared a judgement about a more uncertain characters, as they did with Yamato and Bridget (but pestering Fandom to constantly make judgements about characters that they know very little about is obviously not acceptable behaviour). Otherwise, personal guesswork interpretations or fanon should definitely not be allowed.

Sounds fair to me. By the by...

Staff who agree to the creation of a LGBT tag:

Damage3245, LordTracer, Armorchompy, Elixirblue, Colonel Krukov, Samanpatou, Qawsedf234, Antvasima, Duedate8898, Maverick_Zero_X (Leaning towards neutral), Agnaa (11)
.
Users who agree to the creation of LGBT tag:
Rez, Braking, Valiant_Abyss, CurrySenpai (4)

Staff who disagree to the creation of a LGBT tag:
Crabwhale, AKM Sama, KingTempest (3)

Users who disagree to the creation of a LGBT tag:
Deviruman666, Demiipowa, Ralfdoang, Arzzz, Arcker123, Thunderian, Kachon123 (7)

Staff who are neutral on the creation of a LGBT tag:
Abstractions (Leaning towards agree), JustSomeWeirdo (2)

Users who are neutral on the creation of a LGBT tag:
Mad_Dog_Of_Fujiwara (Has contentions, agreed if not reliant on statements), (1)

Staff who agree with the creation of LGBT topics:
N/A

Staff who are neutral on the creation of LGBT topics:
N/A

Staff who disagree with the creation of LGBT topics:
Antvasima (1)

Users who agree with the creation of LGBT topic threads:
N/A

Users who disagree with the creation of LGBT topic threads:
N/A

Users who are neutral on the creation of LGBT topic threads:
N/A

Total tally:

Total agreements (LGBT category): 15

Total disagreements (LGBT Category): 10

Total Neutral statements (LGBT Category): 3

Total Disagreements (LGBT topic threads): 1

I did a tally of the votes. Since most seem fine with it, would it be fair to agree to deal with the canonically (and already accepted) LGBT characters first and if any of the missed characters act in an LGBT-adjacent manner but have no LGBT defining moments, whether WoG statements, self-identification, or via objective actions like sleeping with multiple sexes, then the debating individual can make a content revision thread about it to make a case on exactly why they think that character should qualify for the category, no?

No, that is equivalent to making discussion threads about current controversial political events or for or against specific religions, which is against our rules. It is not allowed as a main topic, as it would heavily provoke a large part of our members who are not progressive and parts of the western civilisation. I think that just creating a news and announcement thread that says "Happy Pride month" is fine, as it tries to encourage goodwill and tolerance within this community, but we should try to avoid conflict and drama as well as we are able. Global society is going through major upheavals and conflict at the moment, and we need to weather out the storm as a friendly and collaborative safe haven for everybody, not randomly throw matches into nitroglycerine tanks and think that nothing will happen.

We already have a rule, though, saying that it's fine to talk about religious and political topics as long as it pertains to fictional media. As you yourself stated, since LGBT stuff would qualify I don't see why it would be treated any differently.

That is, categories noting characters who are canonically considered to gay, straight, questioning, bisexual or transgendered or somehow do not follow the usual gender norms.

If you include straight characters then that'd include most of the wiki, and not be very fitting for an LGBT category.

Yes, thanks. Heterosexual characters wouldn't qualify for the tag nor would they usually be used to be described as part of the LGBT community save for the obvious outliers. I placed that there by mistake. The OP has been appropriately edited. Also, thanks for the aid by listing.

 

[Agnaa]

Users who agree to the creation of LGBT tag:
Rez, Braking, Valiant_Abyss, CurrySenpai, Agnaa (5)

I'm staff tho (._.)

 

[CosmicWreck]

Warnings are obviously fine to apply if people went over the line, and I definitely did not mean to state that remotely all of our members from, for example, the devout Islamic and orthodox Christian parts of this world are not progressive.

I am just saying that going by statistical opinion polls, most of the people living there are genuinely quite conservative regarding this issue as far as I am aware, and we cannot make this into a forum where only progressives are allowed, as it would cripply our community and cause greater grudges/hatred between different groups, rather than help them learn to get along by staying non-political and finding common ground, and I did not think that most of the comments that I and others deleted here seemed to enter into actual hate-speech territory. We cannot realistically go around and ban everybody who are the slightest bit bigoted or intolerant.

I admit I didn't think that they'd be such political and societal issues brought up when I first made this thread. This was a mistake. I always thought:

Heterosexual women can like Yaoi.

Heterosexual men can like Yuri.

Heterosexuals can also like media with homosexuals (Kishimoto, for example, would read fanmangas with NaruSasu depictions, for example).

As I said before, the consumption and discussion of LGBT media is no more of an indictment on political, moral, sexual or religious stances as the partaking of any other form of would be controversial media, something I thought vsbattles has always acknowledged. I do not personally think it is fair to the vsbattles wiki that they should view such comments of ignorance that imply otherwise as an indictment on themselves or on how they do things.

(Edited)

 

[CosmicWreck]

Users who agree to the creation of LGBT tag:
Rez, Braking, Valiant_Abyss, CurrySenpai, Agnaa (5)

I'm staff tho (._.)

I am so sorry.

(Edit: You really helped this wiki [and me personally both before and now] a lot. Please do not let my traitor brain make you think you or your contributions are any less special )

 

[Antvasima]

I did a tally of the votes. Since most seem fine with it, would it be fair to agree to deal with the canonically (and already accepted) LGBT characters first and if any of the missed characters act in an LGBT-adjacent manner but have no LGBT defining moments, whether WoG statements, self-identification, or via objective actions like sleeping with multiple sexes, then the debating individual can make a content revision thread about it to make a case on exactly why they think that character should qualify for the category, no?

Again, in order to avoid agitated arguments and potentially misleading information, only characters that have been clearly proven to be LGBT via some form of official information should be included in the category.

We already have a rule, though, saying that it's fine to talk about religious and political topics as long as it pertains to fictional media. As you yourself stated, since LGBT stuff would qualify I don't see why it would be treated any differently.

Yes, as long as it only relates to fiction and no real world politics it is perfectly fine.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Question, let's say there is a LGBT category, how do we know which characters get it? The ones stated LGBT or do we assume?

Don't fully understand how we will know with fictional characters unless stated

only characters that have been clearly proven to be LGBT via some form of official information should be included in the category.

Oh.. I think this answers it

 

[SaberPhantasy9]

can i comment if i'm lgbt but not a staff? or was that for a different thread only

i would like it if we had an lgbt category, i dont think it would hurt.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

can i comment if i'm lgbt but not a staff? or was that for a different thread only

i would like it if we had an lgbt category, i dont think it would hurt.

I think it's perfectly fine to do that.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that seems fine to me.

 

[SamanPatou]

Should we also compile a list of characters that can be used as good examples of what qualifies and what doesn't qualify for this category?
Like, putting them below the mentioned explanations.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a good idea, yes.

 

[Bernkastelll]

It seems that LGBT persons gained the autorization to comment here, right?

Well, this character, Ren, was a guy who was reincarnated as female, but his (now Her) mind still loves women, so she should have LGBT classification

but im not sure which one, i mean, his mind is a male one but his biological body is now a female, so maybe she's trans? i dunno, but since she is a biological female now, she should at least be lesbian, because she likes women but we have no confirmation (not that i know) thats she likes men

 

[Antvasima]

Well, maybe just classifying them as LGBT is enough, as it is hard to define whether they are now a lesbian or transgender? I am not sure. It is probably better if other people who are more aware of the proper terminology try to evaluate it.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

It seems that LGBT persons gained the autorization to comment here, right?

Well, this character, Ren, was a guy who was reincarnated as female, but his (now Her) mind still loves women, so she should have LGBT classification

but im not sure which one, i mean, his mind is a male one but his biological body is now a female, so maybe she's trans? i dunno, but since she is a biological female now, she should at least be lesbian, because she likes women but we have no confirmation (not that i know) thats she likes men

You said Ren's mind is still a male, but his biological body is now a female, but he loves women, correct?

That might be bisexual then.