Talk:gay man

RFD discussion: January–February 2021
SOP. PUC – 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Super-gay delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * excuse me? what is "super-gay" delete supposed to mean? Louisianajones1978 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's when you delete something in a super gay manner. Speaking of which, I cast a super-bi delete vote, which is what happens when someone edits Wiktionary while listening to Ladytron — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 😓 Should be deleted already. The page author failed to learn the ABC of Wiktionary. Fay Freak (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * obviously keep. The terms "gay man/men" need to be defined. Gay and homosexual both refer to people of any gender who is attracted to a person of the same-sex. There is no term on Wiktionary defining what a gay man is. It's 2021. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is simply +  with no additional layer of meaning beyond what is already conveyed by the words individually. That's what is meant by SOP, or "sum of parts". We don't keep such phrases. 120.150.121.92 09:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You might as well claim that Wiktionary has no terms defining a tall man, or a purple carrot. --Lambiam 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just made edits. It is a political, cultural, and sexual identity. The argument would more be like if somebody had made a page about African Americans and the argument was delete it because the person who had written it had made it literally about African and Americans. Needs revision, not deletion. But thank you for the clarification . Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * African-American is a very poor analogy (only used for people with Sub-Saharan African ancestry; mostly used for Americans from the US; there be lemmings), African-American man is a better analogy that is also SOP. Many SOP terms are socially relevant identities, we don't have lesbian woman, secular Muslim, French mime or goth girl either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That identity is socially constructed, and not all men who are exclusively or primarily attracted towards other men embrace that identity – they do not consider it defining. Whether or not one agrees with their position, are they not, nevertheless, gay men? If they are, the term is SOP. If not, we need a definition that makes clear it is confined to homosexual males who embrace a “gay identity” – which we would need to define, and requires attestation of both terms as having theses senses. --Lambiam 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, many male homosexuals are closeted and adopt the identity of a gay man only after they've made the conscious decision to openly identify as such. Both homosexual males and females today can come out as gay, whereas only same-sex attracted women come out as lesbians and same-sex attracted men come out as gay men. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a homosexual man only becomes a “gay man” by their coming out? --Lambiam 22:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that's really more of a philosophical rather than a definitional question. Is a homosexual man considered a gay man when he realizes he's attracted to men? when he has sex for the first time? or when he openly identifies as a gay man? When does a homosexual woman become a lesbian? I think it's likely a personal process of identification. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to understand why you feel that gay man does not simply mean “a man who is gay” but has a lexical identity of its own. So if this is not the definitional issue revealing the distinction, then what is? --Lambiam 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All of these alleged nuances seem to be properties of, not . It is accurate that some gay men reject the term gay, hence the medical term , but, again, that has nothing to do with this adjective-noun combination.__Gamren (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as WT:SOP, unless someone can demonstrate some other reason for keeping, like WT:THUB. - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe point it to Thesaurus:male homosexual ? Troll Control (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete this and the plural form as well. Clearly SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as gaily as we possibly can. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't edit on Wiktionary so I doubt it's really my place to put in my two cents here (kind of found this debate by accident through Wikipedia tbh) but as someone who identifies as a gay man (definitely not a "male homosexual" lol), it would actually be really great to have a working definition for the term. Jpesch95 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not your place to have your only edit on this website be casting a vote because you identify with the term, when you have clearly not bothered to read the criteria for inclusion that we use to determine whether terms actually belong in a dictionary. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So should Chinese man be included? This and gay man can be clearly broken down into an adjective and a noun, which is what SOP means, even though there are Chinese men and gay men users here. If gay man could be included just because one user here identifies as a gay man and is proud that there is an entry for it, then any adjective+(man, woman...) combination could be created as its own entry, which is bad for Wiktionary. --ItMarki (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Interestingly gayman is attestable (Citations:gayman)- although from my brief research it seems to have been a short-lived usage from around 1990 and not appearing in more recent writing. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete obviously. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WT:SOP. Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep WT:COALMINE. DTLHS (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the coalmine test applies. Compound nouns in English are made as noun+noun, so gayman must use the noun sense of gay. Gay man is just an adjective and a noun. Delete, obviously.__Gamren (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamren. I would assume that the compound is pronounced or, a pronunciation that would be very atypical for gay man, so they cannot be supposed to represent the same word in spoken language. Correct me if I'm wrong. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. SoP. Also the definition is not accurate. A man is a male human, not an identity. (E.g. "I identify as a gay man = I identify as an identity"?) Can also be substituted by "gay gentleman", "gay boy", "gay lad", etc. This entry is hogwash — and I say that as a gay man. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've corrected that.__Gamren (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is rather sad and unfortunate that after homosexuals hijacked the term gay, usage of the original sense seems to have dropped dramatically. So a passage from a 1962 railway magazine: "A rather gayer finish than usual regained 2¾min between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross" now seems rather dated. But gay man has plenty of synonyms: my favourite is . DonnanZ (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My favourite quaint old use is from a 1970s interview with notorious British politician, in which the interviewer says that he ran a "very gay" election campaign! Mihia (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not fully synonymous, I think; one would hardly call a a “poof”.  --Lambiam 12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you wouldn't… —Mahāgaja · talk 14:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No reference to bears anyway. Maybe you mean Bear. DonnanZ (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This can easily be fixed. Tell me one provable (sourced) thing that belongs to, or is done by, a "gay man" that would never belong to, or be done by, "man who is gay. Equinox ◑ 09:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted, with clear consensus to delete. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–May 2022

 * Delete, looks SOP. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder why it was recreated when it was deleted a year ago? (see: Talk:gay man) @BryanKatz if you could answer, please. Nonetheless, a reason I can see for keeping it is as a translation hub seeing that is not recommended for usage as a noun, and some of the translations there are also on that same vein that are actively discouraged, exceedingly formal, and/or exclusively used for gay men, but don't currently have a qualifier (which can lead to confusion). There's also no direct equivalent to the translations at  (noun) at the moment. So I'd keep as T-HUB as it could be a very solid translation point, especially for more everyday terms. AG202 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to vote delete, but your translation point is an interesting one. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was actually about to add this edit to my initial comment actually when you replied: "I see the translations at (noun) but for similar reasons as with, being that it's not commonly used as a noun in English in the singular and can be offensive, I'd prefer that they be at  & , but I'm not super torn on it either way, and wouldn't be too opposed to re-deletion." So it'd be a weak keep for me, just because I think this could be a really solid translation point if done well. AG202 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just been deleted out of process... Theknightwho (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I expected maybe a little bit more time before the re-deletion, but meh, I would at least like to lob the prospect of undeletion specifically for being a t-hub since I was in the process of adding more translations that aren't found at the aforementioned pages, but someone else can make the formal undeletion request if that's needed. I'm personally a bit turned off from this discussion after the conversation and attitude on Discord. AG202 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am out of the loop on anything to do with Discord entirely. Isn't it against the spirit of the WMF to be holding decision-making discussions there? Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there’s no reason to hold discussions in private spaces. But I don’t care as long as it’s not mandatory for all to participate in Discord chats. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is obviously gay men who object to being called homosexuals, but it is perfectly acceptable by most other people. DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * here's your (You) —Fish bowl (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "here's your (You)"? - you've lost me on the meaning of this. Facts707 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have heard a gay man described as a since maybe the 1970s, verbally or in print. I certainly wouldn't use it that way - it sounds very dated and/or pejorative. Facts707 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been 30 days, RFD-restored/undeleted, pinging. AG202 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore as translation hub per AG202 —Fish bowl (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also restore as translation hub per above. Theknightwho (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore as translation hub (Wt:THUB) per above. Facts707 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Restored. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! AG202 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)