| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Category talk:Bisexuals
From RationalWiki
Is this category really necessary?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think this and Category:Homosexuals should
dienot exist. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)- Since these categories refer to discriminated groups of people, I don't think "should die" is a preferable way to phrase that. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- ... Because there's no way to extricate an electronic category on a wiki from a physical group of people. <.< FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not saying I don't know you're talking about the categories, but taken out of context your statement could be seen as notably offensive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it. Even if it's only as a user category, keep it. As a bisexual, I like knowing who else feels (and, more importantly, understnads) the way I am. Noisemobile (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be fine to empty this (and category:homosexuals) of non-users, then? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's gonna exist as a category, I don't see the harm in having it on articles where the person being bisexual is of relevant notice, like Oscar Wilde for example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oscar certainly fits here. Still don't like the category, but I'll let my endless rage subside for awhile. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's gonna exist as a category, I don't see the harm in having it on articles where the person being bisexual is of relevant notice, like Oscar Wilde for example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be fine to empty this (and category:homosexuals) of non-users, then? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it. Even if it's only as a user category, keep it. As a bisexual, I like knowing who else feels (and, more importantly, understnads) the way I am. Noisemobile (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not saying I don't know you're talking about the categories, but taken out of context your statement could be seen as notably offensive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- ... Because there's no way to extricate an electronic category on a wiki from a physical group of people. <.< FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since these categories refer to discriminated groups of people, I don't think "should die" is a preferable way to phrase that. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)