Category talk:Homosexuals

Not used. Blue (is useful) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, this category should either be expanded to 'Queers' (might be too pejorative), 'LGBT people' (not as inclusive as queer, but it'll have to do), or depreciated entirely. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and some of these people are bi, not gay (like Keynes)ClothCoat (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of a weird category to begin with, honestly. I question its necessity. --Kels (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously do we want to change the name or what? As I said before some of these people are bi, not gay or lesbian. ClothCoat (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe create a "Category:LGBTs."Talk to Civic Cat 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary?

We don't have Category:Heterosexuals, nor should we. What use is this category? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is enough to mention a person's sexuality in an article if their sexuality is relevant to their appearance on RW -- a noted LGBT activist, or, better yet, some politician or preacher who advocates against equal rights for LGBT folk and then gets caught with their hands where they shouldn’t be. Beyond that, the category is counterproductive. AgingHippie (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We have Category:Not gay for anti-gay gays. Since that's so, should this one be nixed? (edit) Though I think said Category:Not gay would be better called "Absolutely completely heterosexual". FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree about removing this category. Or at least, if it is to stay, rename it to something like "LGBT people". --Yisfidri (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

3 for. 0 against. It begins. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)