Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blood donation

[edit]

Technically this restriction doesn't discriminate against LGBT people, but against men who have had sex with other men. Celibate LGBT people are allowed to donate blood. I'm not sure what the rules are about lesbian women. 81.158.1.156 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the National Blood Service policy is that you should never give blood if "you're a man who's had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom". So even if a man is currently celibate (or monogamous), this is a life-long ban. Ashley VH (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, there is specific mention of anti-discrimination law with respect to blood donations in the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 section 28 (extract below) which makes it unlawful to discriminate unless there is an accepted clinical assessment of risk (now, does anyone have a reference for such a risk report?):
Blood donation
28.—(1) This regulation applies to any person operating a service for the collection and distribution of human blood for the purposes of medical services (“a blood service”)...
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), it is unlawful for a person operating a blood service to discriminate against a person on grounds of sexual orientation in the way it affords him access to any facility for the donation of his blood.
(3) Nothing in this regulation shall make it unlawful for a person operating a blood service to refuse to accept a donation of a person’s blood where that refusal is determined by an assessment of risk to the public based on—
(a) clinical, epidemiological and other data which was obtained from a source on which it was reasonable to rely, and
(b) the refusal is reasonable having regard to that data, and any other relevant factors.
-- Ashley VH (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1940s

[edit]

Here there's some interesting statistics about prosecutions of gays from 1938 to 1955: "In 1938, the police in England and Wales dealt with 134 cases of sodomy; in 1952, 670; and in 1954, 1043. Arrests for homosexual assault increased from 822 in 1938 to 3,305 in 1955. Furthermore, in 1955, there were 2,322 recorded instances of "gross indecency" in England and Wales, in comparison with 316 in 1938." It could be good to flesh out this earlier period not covered by the article. Malick78 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage laws

[edit]

I have heared that there are parentage laws coming into force from 1 May 2009. It allows lesbians and there fe male de facto or civil partner who have undergone IVF or insamination to be recognised on the childs birth cirtificate - heterosexual women have always had there husband or de facto male partner recognised for years. under the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008 (assented). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties

[edit]

It would nice to see a section on how each of the political parties approach gay rights.

Sam 12:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

rewrite of the lead?

[edit]

Although it may seem commonsense, the open sentence "are regarded as liberal" is unsourced, subjective, and vague. And the summary of legislation in the intro paragraph seems a hodge-podge, neither in chronological or reverse-chronological or, as far as I can see, any other order.

Anyone mind if I rework?

Dybryd (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does need a major rewrite. It's, as you said, very hodge-podge and lacks structure and coherence. It also needs to mention the important fact that gay marriage is still illegal in the UK. MaesterTonberry (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cleaned up the lead. MaesterTonberry (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex adoption in Nothern Ireland and dates

[edit]

Is same-sex adoption still illegal in Northern Ireland? From searching I've only found stories from a couple years ago remarking on the controversy on proposals to legalise it rather than any news of it becoming legal. The result of a court case in 2008 allowed unmarried couples to adopt but didn't explicitly mention the status of same-sex couples. See here

Also I'm aware that the 'Adoption and Children Bill' in England and Wales was in 2002 but does anyone know the date the laws came into effect? (a previous date on the article stated 1 August 2006 but I found nothing to back that up - the citation provided had nothing to do with it). MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary checklist

[edit]

Is there really any need for this? It looks more like a list of demands. The red crosses and the green ticks are incredibly POV, almost agreeing that all the points are 'good things'. I think they are, but Wikipedia shouldn't be stating what is good or bad.86.130.0.104 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it makes it look as if Wikipedia itself is taking a stand and saying that all of those things are automatically great and constitute basic rights - something I don't think it does. A checklist is hardly appropriate and hardly does the great deal of variation in opinion justice. I'd recommend taking it out. 69.157.48.73 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking it out - no one has mentioned a good reason it should be there. 70.50.222.202 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary table isn't exactly unique to this page, in fact it's the norm for LGBT rights articles (see). The reason for them I imagine is to provide a quick overview of what legal rights gay people have in the country. However what's included in the columns often varies from article to article and the one on this page has ballooned to such an extent that editors seem to add any new information to it rather than place it in the main body of the article. I don't have a strong opinion on them either way. MaesterTonberry (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading too far in between the lines; a green tick and a red cross means yes and no respectively, not some secret opinion hidden within the Wikipedia page. It is in no way breaking any sort of POV rule. It is a clear, easy-to-understand, comprehensive tally of rights, not "stating what is good or bad", the removal of it just makes the article less concise and comprehensive. --79.72.133.75 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even a child at school knows that a green tick means that you got a question right. 86.2.118.52 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would people feel about replacing the Checks and X-es with Yes-es and No-s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.86.254 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Turing

[edit]

Should this article mention the case of Alan Turing? I see that's now a current news item. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now the prime minister has issued a statement concerning Alan Turing. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant and should be included although seeing as the layout of the article is a bit messy I'm not sure where it should be put. At the end of the "Social reform and legal equality" section seems to be the only place it can go at the moment. MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to comment how pleased I am that the British government has finally at least taken the small step of admitting its treatment of Turing was unjust. I first learned in an intro algorithms course at university about the horrific abuse to which the great mathematician and co-founder of the field of theoretical computer science (together with American Alonzo Church) was subjected by his own government. Turing's work was one of a handful of subjects I studied during my university years that had led me to become intrigued about algorithmic algebra and cryptography; the shocking tale of his suffering and slow death at the hands of the very nation that ought to have been hailing him as a war hero was one of a handful of episodes, events, stories, etc. (contemporary and otherwise) that I learned about during those years that led me to become a passionate supporter of LGBT rights. It also serves as an important reminder that the Third Reich was not the only government at the time indulging in the torment and murder of particular people for who or what they were.
Everybody agrees about the importance of Turing's work. I fervently hope that the UK government will also continue to move in the direction of admitting the importance of his personal story, and the horror and injustice of its treatment of him, and will make its best efforts to do whatever it can at this late date to make up for that injustice...I also hope that Wikipedia will continue taking note of such efforts on the UK's part. I consider Alan Turing to be a major LGBT martyr. His story certainly deserves mention in an article on LGBT rights in his country, just as the story of, e.g., Harvey Milk deserves mention in the analogous article pertaining to the USA. (I note, BTW, that it is not.) Mia229 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Act 2010

[edit]

Added changes due to the Equality Act 2010 including :

  • Civil partnerships may now be held on religious premises
  • Inclusion of anti trans gender discrimination
  • Banning discrimination by schools on the grounds of gender reassignment

PjThompso 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

This section should note that in the Equality Bill it is now legal to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of gender reassignment in the provision of single sex facilities if that discrimination is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example trans women can now legally (even if they are in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate) from Women Refuges and Rape Crisis Centres.

Alicephilippa (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and NI

[edit]

The article as currently written is from a very England-centric viewpoint. Either a Scotland article should be spun off or a separate subsection added for LGBT rights in Scotland (and also for NI).LothianLiz (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and NI are still definitely part of the UK. People want to see LGBT rights in one place rather than looking all over the place for them. However there are missing sections for the Isle Of Man, Channel Islands etc, all of which have different legislative dates.

In the box summary section, are the dates wrong for Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Same-sex sexual acts legal Since 1967 in England & Wales Since 1981 in Scotland Since 1982 in Northern Ireland

Wasn't homosexuality decriminalised in Scotland by The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 In NI wasnt it in 1981 - The European Court of Human Rights in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom strikes down Northern Ireland's criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults PjThompso 12:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

The article's title is "LGBT rights in the UK" - that's why there's no section for the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. They have different legislative dates because they have their own parliaments, elections and no representation in the UK parliament whatsoever. They are not nor ever have been a part of the UK as anybody with knowledge of the UK should know. The IOM and each of the main Channel Islands have their own articles.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK dependencies

[edit]

A section should be added describing the legal basis and status of relationships in the UK's territorial possessions outside of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Fortguy (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Discrimination protections: All protections since 2010"

[edit]

Is there a special meaning of 'all protections' that is different from the normal meaning?

For example, there is no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if taking up a position in a religious organisation. There is also state-mandated discrimination against homosexuals wanting a religious wedding ceremony.

It seems to me that 'generally protected, with exceptions for religious organisations' would be more accurate.

Joombar (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery

[edit]

Just to explain my edit:

Adultery is grounds for divorce for same-sex marriages, using the same definition of adultery as in opposite-sex marriages – that of case law, which is penile-vaginal intercourse. As Schedule 4, Part 3.2 says, "“(6)Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.”. Nowhere in the act is adultery not said to be grounds for divorce. There is no inequality or difference there vis-à-vis opposite- and same-sex marriages; the definition of adultery is valid equally for all marriages. Rossoh (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in the United Kingdom

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in the United Kingdom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ILGA 2013":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales

[edit]

Equality is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly so legislation such as the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act applies in Wales just as much as in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excesses (talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 January 2015

As Wales now has law making powers and can pass its own legislation and can have separate laws, which differ from those in England. Not all LGBT+ rights are criminal and the church in Wales is a separate entity so there can be difference If there was no welsh assembly the England and Wales would be one unit as there is a separate legislature albeit in only 20 areas, there is now going to be variation in what happens in or around those areas and that can and will include LGBT+ rights for example there could be a different stance taken by NHS Wales or the Welsh government on MSM blood donation.This is why i think they need to be two separate entries. Sport and politics (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the same way as "equality" not being devolved to Northern Ireland as "equality" is covered by way too many areas, e.g. Service provision in Tourism and MSM blood Donation the NHS devolved areas. Sport and politics (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the items in that table are within the power of the Welsh Assembly, as defined by the Government of Wales Act 2006 (as amended) to pass legislation on. Blood donation isn't in the table but it's an odd one anyway as based on NHS Trust rather that geographic borders - only North Wales is covered by NHSBT, so it's possible there could be some differences in implementation. However, in practice, SaBTO are setting the guidelines everyone is following. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wales does not have full lawmaking powers. Under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006, Wales has the ability to pass legislation of two kinds: Measures and Acts, and the matters that are devolved differ. Matters where the Welsh Assembly has powers to pass Measures are laid down by Section 94 and Schedule 5; subjects where the Assembly has powers to pass Acts are laid down by Section 108 and Schedule 7. Any matter or subject of law which is not explicitly devolved by those Schedules remains under the jurisdiction of Westminster. In Schedule 5, equality is mentioned only in the context of the Welsh language; marriage and gender are not mentioned at all. In Schedule 7, equality is mentioned only in the context of equal opportunities (i.e. employment); marriage is explicitly excluded (Clause 12); and gender is not mentioned at all. Therefore the Welsh Assembly does not have lawmaking powers in those areas. Consequently, Section 20 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is able to state "This Act extends to England and Wales" without further qualification; it goes on to show how it applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland, with several qualifications. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT community in the UK

[edit]

Currently developing a new section for this page to outline the large LGBT communities that have been set up across our cities. Let me know what you think... User:StJaBe/sandbox

StJaBe (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of first paragraph?

[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if anyone who is a British LGBT Christian or someone skilled in inclusive narratives could rewrite the first paragraph that says "Before and during the formation of the UK, Christianity and homosexuality clashed. Same-sex sexual activity was characterised as sinful..."

This perpetuates the myth that being LGBT is a sin and the myth that it is impossible to be an LGBT Christian. For straight Christians reading this paragraph, it also immediately changes the tone of the narrative and influences the degree of receptiveness the viewer has.

This is my opinion as an American LGBT Christian. I am not knowledgable/authoritative on how to best word it for the British experience, but want to point this out so someone with more knowledge/authority could correct it within a British context.

I hope this was helpful.

Thanks! TenorTwelve (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting up of article

[edit]

It is about the right time to consider splitting this article in to more child articles, and turning this article in to a genuine overview article. This way all elements which relate to this topic can be adequately and comprehensively covered. There fore I propose the splitting in to the following articles: New Article title → sections covered

  1. Sexual orientation rights in the United Kingdom → Same-sex sexual activity (and all the sub sections)
  2. Adoption and family rights in the United Kingdom → Adoption and family planning
  3. Gender identity and the military of the United Kingdom → new section
  4. Sexual orientation equality in the United Kingdom and Gender Identity equality in the United Kingdom → Discrimination protections
  5. Sexual orientation conversion therapy in the United Kingdom and Gender identity conversion therapy in the United Kingdom-> Controversy over conversion therapy

Please feel free to comment on these proposed child articles, there is an awful lot of information on this topic, and each section needs a dedicated article. At the moment it is very hefty on G issues, and the rest are not covered as well as they could be if at all in some cases. For example being transgender in the UK military.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is because other areas (such as Intersex rights in the United Kingdom) already have child articles? I support this in principle, but you might want to look at precedent elsewhere, such as Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service instead of creating so many new pages. Trankuility (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me, but I fail to see the comparisons, or the precedent. All the proposed articles have more than enough information to stand on their own. This topic and all areas of it are immeasurably huge, and so is this article. This article already has 11 child article/links to other articles on topics of this subject. Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit in keeping the article together is that it allows users to read about all topics, whereas many child articles are propbably never read. I don't support this split. Hekerui (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

18 year olds and 1967 Act

[edit]

Was sex between 18 year old men illegal in 1980? For memoir. Wrolf (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal. Same-sex sexual activity was only legal for men aged 21 and over in England and Wales in 1980 (as per what is written in the article). In Scotland and Northern Ireland it was illegal for men of all ages at that time. Same-sex sexual activity was first made legal for men aged 21 and over in England and Wales in 1967 (reduced to 18 in 1994, and then to 16 in 2000), in Scotland in 1981, and in Northern Ireland in 1982. These basic points are outlined in the articles info box on the right hand side of the page, while more detailed information is included in the main body of the article. For more information see the section of this article titled Decriminalisation of homosexual acts, as well as these pages:

Hope that helps. Helper201 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the therapy has been banned

[edit]

The EU Parliament vote was in fact binding to the UK.2601:447:4101:5780:55E8:7063:62D7:F63E (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that Panda would now acknowledge this bill I made in earlier edits which was erased.[1] However, I later learned it only applies to a post-Brexit UK. The European Parliament's Intergroup on LGBT Rights even stated in 2018 that "Currently, only the UK, Malta and some regions in Spain have explicitly banned LGBTI conversion therapies."[2]2601:447:4101:5780:55E8:7063:62D7:F63E (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video: beginning of LGBT+ History Month 2021

[edit]

Hi. I'm unsure where to add this important video. Not all countries respect LGBT+ History Month. Wales does. This is a Government video: any suggestions where is best? The Welsh Government have supported the LGBT+ in many ways, and there should really be a section for that. Any help would be appreciated. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywelyn2000, Thank you for uploading this video. Unfortunately I reverted your edit because it does not suit the section and possibly this article. I would suggest you add it to the UK section in LGBT History Month instead. Otherwise, it may not yet have a place on a current article. AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better home for it! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superflous sections

[edit]

I would remove these sections, as they just seem too trivial, simply being relatively recent news stories without much relevance to the article as a whole. 1.7 Alan Turing 1.8 200 year old diary --TrottieTrue (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military and LGBT Rights

[edit]

The introduction currently seems to imply that the military only legally stopped discharging LGBT in 2016 when the final archaic elements of the Armed Forces Act were repealed. I'm not sure this is a fair representation of the truth to be honest. Whilst the detail may have been still included in legislation, LGBT personnel have not been subject to "non-enforcement" since 2000 - there have been many obvious and clear efforts to encourage LGBT. There is an entire Wiki article on the subject and it explains in detail about what happened between 2000 and 2016! Sexual orientation and the military of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray Trainer (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overal history

[edit]

Introduction began with the clash between Christianity and Homosexuality (597AD). Britain was not anti homosexual for hundreds of years before the form arrival of Christianity. This includes the Anglo Saxon, Roman and Celtic periods. Pjthompso (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool

[edit]

When I search lgbtq+ in my browser of choice, the webwidget that comes up is blackpool's! 91.240.227.220 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trans “blacklist”

[edit]

Should we include this situation in Transgender rights? https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/12/06/trans-gender-recognition-certificate-kemi-badenoch-uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12818487/amp/Ministers-blacklist-countries-people-change-gender.html Melofy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melofy, I'd say yes and that WP:BEBOLD applies here. Though don't ever use the Daily Mail to cite anything on Wikipedia. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL (the Daily Express and Metro are to be avoided as well). Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just grabbed the first two links I saw just to question if we should, I will use more reliable scources in editing. Thank you! Melofy (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Melofy, no problem. Please remember you use Template:Cite news when citing a news source, or Template:Cite web if its non-news website. You can see an example of how this is done with the sources I've done this for that you added (i.e. the two PinkNews sources). Anyway, thanks for adding the info. Helper201 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1246350442"