Commons:Deletion requests/Category:People by sexuality
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Given this explanation, the creator tries to collect People randomly by gender, genital mutilation, sexual orientation, practice or any "other oddnesses and their combinations". --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 00:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep ZH2010 a bit missinterpreted my arguments. I never proposed to collect all criteria "randomly" and mix them. On the contrary, i asserted to keep the structured categorization and separate gender characteristics or erotic orientation characteristics into specific subcategories within all characteristic of the whole people's sexual-erotic identity. Some characteristics of people's sexuality (like be asexual or pedophilic or an eunuch or a gay) are not gender characteristics. ZH2010 tried to remove the category of Category:People by sexuality and move their content to Category:People by gender. I objected that erotic orientation and gender are two different of many existing attributes of sexuality as a personal characteristic. The category "People by sexuality" clearly refers to sexuality as a personal characteristic, an aspect of personality and a personal sexual disposition, not to any practice or activity. Btw., I never judged which of statuses and variants of sexuality are "mutilation" or "disorder" or "healthy" etc. Such culturally conditioned assessments would be needlessly controversial. – I never claimed that the category may contain only oddnesses. I only proved that special phenomenons require special categories rather and more frequent than basic and majority phenomenons and that is the main reason why a category "Heterosexual people" would be hardly practicable. --ŠJů (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said you proposed to collect people randomly, but you do! When initially looking into the mess you created, I tried to put things back on how they were, but that is not the subject or this discussion. Here again two quotes from your talk page:
I was looking around, and people do get sorted by their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, :People by gender is not a sub-category of :People by sexuality, just like the Catholic church is not a sub-category of Europe. The problem i have with :People by sexuality (in the very meaning of the word), is that it is bound to include anybody "associated with sex". (Ehm.... everbody has sex?) - What a category? I think it would be acceptable to have a category:People by sexual orientation, but you would would still miss out on :Heterosexual people. If you insist on including :Asexuality, you would also need to include :Heterosexuality - both of them don't belong into the cat-tree for people. What you end up is having LGBT people merged with :Pedophiles (the latter also created by You and "utterly systematic").
Actually, LGBT people is not entirely "by sexual orientation" - so there will surely come user questioning that too! --ZH2010 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the asymmetry and missing category "heterosexual people" - this is a standard of categorization that the default (majority) form has not its special subcategory. E. g. "Trams" are defaultly (generally) categorized as electric rolling stock, but have subcategories of horse-powered, steam-powered, diesel-powered, air-powered etc. trams. An other example: most of categories are defaultly for photos (have no subcategory of photos) but contain subcategories of videos, drawings, audios. The prevalent (default) form has not its own subcategory but is identic with the main (parent) category.
You are right that "sexuality" is (in English) a word with more meanings. One meaning is "to belong to one of two sexes", the second meaning is "to have a coitus", the third meaning is "the complex of erotic, reproductive and dimorphy characteristics of an individual" etc. Maybe, American journalistic English tends to the second meaning but classical, professional and academic literature works with the third, most wide and most abstract meaning. I think, the category name "people by sexuality" clearly adverts to this meaning which includes all partial dimensions of sexuality: psychological and anatomical gender, erotic orientation and others. "LGBT" (LGB, LGBTI, LGBTIQ...U-C-SA-F etc.) are trendy ideological alliances or "patchworks" which include several different gender and orientation oddnesses and their combinations. It should be reflected in the categoriation as an auxiliary topic group but shouldn't be a base. "People by sexuality" is more general and neutral. "People by sexual orientation" and "People by gender" as well as "Asexual people" (or "Hypersexual people") - should be subcategories of "People by sexuality". --ŠJů (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
3 ŠJů --ZH2010 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if the sub-categories get further sub-categorized into a less random cat-tree (by creating probably another dozen 1-image-categories), Commons will probably end up with more categories for people's (most-likely unreferenced) sex-lifes than there are yet categories in "Human sexuality":
- Is it desirable to have all those categories around and to give user the opportunity to put people into all those categories? Many Living people's sex-life may be fluxionary and cannot be pigeon-holed like tram-cars!
- Who will stop people from creating categories like :People living in chastity/abstention from sex (like Nuns or Catholic priests)?
- People in some of the sub-categories are objectively rather defined by their lifestyle. User:ŠJů is obsessed to pigeon-hole everyone unilaterally by their sex-life and blind to the (globally) endless correlations this all causes. --ZH2010 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not empty Jcb (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)