851
edits
Talk:LGBT: Difference between revisions
→LGBTPN: new section
imported>Otvm (Created page with "Does anyone think we should use "Q-word" instead of what is there, then create a separate page for people who feel comfortable with seeing it? --~~~~") |
Amazingakita (talk | contribs) (→LGBTPN: new section) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Does anyone think we should use "Q-word" instead of what is there, then create a separate page for people who feel comfortable with seeing it? --[[User:Otvm|Otvm]] ([[User talk:Otvm|talk]]) 17:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | Does anyone think we should use "Q-word" instead of what is there, then create a separate page for people who feel comfortable with seeing it? --[[User:Otvm|Otvm]] ([[User talk:Otvm|talk]]) 17:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
:{{ping|Otvm}} I don't know how offensive is ''queer'' to LGBT+ people, but I guess it would be good. ''Q-word'', however, it's vague in my opinion. We could add a link to [[Queer]] to the ''See also'' section of this page together with a content warning. What do you think? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|NeoMahler}} That sounds good enough. --[[User:Otvm|Otvm]] ([[User talk:Otvm|talk]]) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
== LGBTPN == | |||
Should we keep this acronym in? I, as an ace/aro person don't want this here, but the description is wonderfully neutral, and if people are using it (judging by google results a few people are)... | |||