Talk:Gay male speech/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

right word?

Is "lisp" the right word? The gay accents I'm familiar with are very distinct, but don't really have lisps. I'm not proposing the article be moved or anything; just food for thought. -Branddobbe 06:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

shane accent

The gay lisp is also known in the community as the 'shane' accent. It is a sign of femininity, and has a role in defining which partner will assume the role of the submissive in a relationship. Often, the 'shane' accent is used as an identifier for submissive homosexuals, in contrast to the characteristics of the dominant, or 'butch' homosexuals. -Victor Fieri , August 26, 2005.

What??? ExRat 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Citation? Tiagojones 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Still others suggest that the accent stems from marginalization.

Who suggests this, and what exactly do they mean? --April Arcus 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The studies mentioned (Gaudio, Moonwomon) need some references, too. 68.9.205.10 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup, it's a fact: Wikipedia has EVERYTHING. After I found this page along with "fag hag," I am amazed! --152.163.101.12 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
A lisp is a lisp. The only way I would see a lisp as being specifically gay is if the speaker were impersonating one to personify the stereotype. The homophobic rapper Elephant Man, for example has a lisp. This article is completely unfounded. GilliamJF 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Overly narrow?

The biggest problem with this article is that it's focused on an ostensible "gay lisp," when all three of the articles cited deal with gay speech in general, not just lisping. An article about gay uses of language might be appropriate, with a section on American gay male enunciation. But the article as it stands needs to be drastically overhauled. -Droman 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary of the Rudolf Gaudio study is very mushy. People could differentiate between gay and straight. Clear cut and dried. Because the results could not fit his hypothesis on pitch measurements does not mean the results should be discounted. There is another factor at work here that Gaudio does not understand. It also needs to be noted that this study used only 13 subjects to rate readings from 4 straight men and 4 gay men. This appears to be a very small sample to reach a solid conclusion. But this may be only part of His whole study. My study info comes from http://joeclark.org/soundinggay.html which is already second hand.


I would hate to see this article disappear for the sake of political correctness This article is of importance to those that lisp and are trying to understand how this affects how they are perceived by others. Speaking differently can be cause for ridicule and marginalization. A person may tend to associate with another maginalized group after they are "cast out of the herd". JTH01 01:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) JTH01

It's an okay article

The article has plenty of solid references. The name, while a slight misnomer, is a popular term for the supposed speech patterns the article discusses. The main thing wrong with the article is that it doesn't have specific line-by-line citations. While that sort of citation is preferable, I can't help feeling whoever added {{Fact}}[citation needed][citation needed][citation needed] had an axe to grind. I too have been guilty of attacking an article when its the subject of the article that I had a real problem with. Maybe that was the case here?

If we were going to rename it, what could be the new name? "Gay speech" invites a discussion of slang and those articles always turn into unencyclopedic mush. "Gay inflection" is as inaccurately prescriptive as the current title and doesn't share its circulation. This is an okay article and it could be a good article with a little work.

For those who want to raise maintain quality standards on Wikipedia by attacking articles rather than improving them, there are lots and lots of much bigger fish to fry. House of Scandal 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This article really should be renamed

"Gay lisp" is a made-up and arguably perjorative slang term. The references do not support the title, and I agree that the focus is overly narrow. "Gay speech pattern," or even better, "Perceived gay speech pattern" would be preferable. Thoughts?Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all terms made-up? And what's perjorative about calling a lisp a lisp? 76.27.239.216 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Without trying very hard, I found and cited a couple LGBT sources which use the term to refer to the sound of gay male speech. While the term is facetious, and is a misnomer, it is definately linguistic currency and we needn't be thin-skinned about it. House of Scandal 07:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

In a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

I offer this as something to consider rather than "proof" that we shouldn't rename. House of Scandal 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Perceived" is a bit redundant in this context, don't you think? And "pattern" implies word selection and organization, not just accents. If we're too thin-skinned to accept "lisp", perhaps "Gay Accent" or "Vocal Mannerism (Gay)" is our term? 76.27.239.216 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs phonetic detail!

I agree with other posters that "gay lisp" is not a good title for this article. How about "Gay pronunciation: 'Gay lisp'", to give it a more objective title, but reference the popular terminology at the same time?

What is really needed for this article is for both a phonetician and a sociolinguist to provide a detailed description of the phenomenon. As a start:

The phonetic reality: We have to recognize that American English has a variety of articulations (tongue positions) that are perceived as S sounds, and most people don't consciously notice the differences. U.S. women tend to use an S that has a smaller groove (the channel formed by the upper surface of the tongue against the alveolar ridge) and more muscular tension of the tongue tip against the lower teeth. This combination of gestures makes an S that sounds more strident than other articulations.

The sociolinguistic reality: When a male uses this articulation, it breaks with our unconscious association of the articulation with female speech, and in U.S. culture, whenever a man does something normally associated with female behavior, the popular assumption is that he is homosexual.

Note that the exact same articulation of S exists in other languages, notably in some Latin American Spanish dialects. But in those areas, the articulation is NOT associated with either male or female speech, so the "gay lisp" phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Rldavis04 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Drew theory

Dr. Drew Pinsky theorizes that this lisp is something of a "tone arrest" basically men and womens voices seem to stop growing at the point of their traumatic experience. Very interesting if you ask me. 67.164.65.21.

Any sources that can confirm this? Benjiboi 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

None yet, but I haven't searched, but he often describes it on his show Loveline.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.65.21 (talk • contribs)

No such thing among Russian gays

The article should be re-named because the title "gay lisp" implies something that is typical for gay men everywhere in the world. But in reality it is something specifically American. There is no "gay lisp" or anything similar among Russian gays, for example. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

At least in Spanish, there is also a gay lisp. I don't think is exclusively american at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.52.253 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When I was working as an English teacher in Moscow way back in the early '90s, there were a couple of gay men among my circle of Russian friends. Since I'm not a native speaker of Russian, I can't be sure whether they had a "lisp" or not, but my gay Russian friends (and their gay friends whom I knew only as vague acquaintances) definitely had certain "mannerisms" in their speech, such as sometimes using grammatically feminine word forms in reference to themselves or to other gay men. (For example, Russian past-tense verbs will have different suffixes depending on the subject's gender. A Russian man who wanted to tell you "I was reading..." would normally say Ya chital , while a woman would say ''Ya chitala . And these gay guys would sometimes use the feminine -ala verb ending instead of the masculine -al.)

What I'm not sure of is whether this was something they'd started doing in imitation of English-speaking gay men who switched pronouns, or if it was an independent development.Throbert McGee (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahahaha. How I laughed. User:66.65.129.159 is American, I know it, before I even check his WHOIS. How do I know? Because it seems only Americans who have this 'America is the English-speaking world and the English-speaking world is America' attitude and are ignorant of anywhere outside the US borders. The gay lisp is well known is the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa - want me to go on? Basically in pretty much any English-speaking country. I guess that'd be why the Russians don't have it. What would be interesting is a section on the history of its development - when was it first recorded as being used, how did it spread to such universal use in the gay English-speaking world? Here in the UK it has been used for decades, even centuries - for example in Polari, a gay slang (later popularised by British comedians Kenneth Williams (himself gay) and Hugh Paddick (also gay) as characters Julian and Sandy. Check them out on Youtube.) 86.133.51.201 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gay lisp - as a signal to other gay people

As a gay man, I offer the following reasons for the gay accent, which don't seem to be covered in the article. I have not done much googling to see if there are papers which support these arguments. (Except maybe http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/32 ). Firstly, it's a signal to other men that you are gay, which might not otherwise be obvious. Since it's a speech pattern, and not some other marker like clothing, you can also mostly 'turn it off' at will, if meeting someone you do not wish to reveal your orientation to. Secondly, the gay accent may also just be a result of living in proximity to other gay people with the same accent - a way of identifying with a community. Note: I don't have a gay accent, very deliberately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.116.194 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with this. It harkens back to the theater, the life-as-pageant, fun-loving worldview. Gay or straight, it's just a fun way to talk and shows up the old "macho" ways of speaking as dull dishwater. 76.27.239.216 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As a gay man, I disagree. I don't even notice myself having a "gay lisp" while I'm speaking, but when I hear my recorded voice played back to me, I definitely hear a "gay lisp." I don't think I sound as bad as some gay men though. I definitely don't do it on purpose. I just do what comes naturally. It actually embarrasses me, but I don't try to change my voice because I would feel even more uncomfortable posing as someone I'm not.

I'm straight, but when I hang out with more than one gay friend I start talking like them. It is fun, and easy to get carried away with. I'm definitely not doing it against my will. I do the same thing when I'm in Brooklyn or Texas: start talkin' like the locals. (Those accents come in a little more subconscious though, they kind of sneak in.) Can't explain all this but any group is gonna pick up ways of talking. It definitely originates in "camp". It's actually more than a lisp; there's a sort of Bette Davis thing going on too. One thing: it ain't genetic. Though you could find solitary gay dudes in the middle of straight island. It's spread by way of stereotypes and media as much as "mainstream" gay culture and the gay sense of life and alienation. But dudes should talk to some Bears if they think all gays talk this way. Bears do not talk like this, usually. It's sad anyone would be ashamed of it, but people do treat gays like weirdos in some places. Gay or straight, a lisp could blow job interviews for sure and attracts derision, but it's also a great way to talk. This article was okay, but needs some sound files. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not restricted to the English speaking world

Here in Denmark it is also common to hear this type of speech among gay men, especially those who also dress feminine. I don't think there is anything negative or stereotypical about it, it's just a way of expressing feminine beauty like lipstick, attractive clothes, high heels and so on. I believe it's common all around the world however I'm pretty sure that in homophobic countries(such as Iran), gay men are smart enough to only use this accent in safe, friendly settings. Maybe this is why ahmedinejad claims that there are no gay people in Iran ROFL. T.R. 87.59.78.140 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pleathe delethe thith arthicle.

Really, what the hell wikipedia. There's plenty of straight men with similar speech impediments. I wonder about the importance of this article... 81.84.1.180 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about an "impediment", it is about a stereotypical quality of speech which is *called*, by the world at large, the "gay lisp". It doesn't suggest, imply or advocate that this phenomenon exists in reality, is characteristic of gay men, or is in any way bad. Like the wikipedia articles about any other social construct, it merely explains the phenomenon in question. The article isn't perfect, but it's certainly no less worthwhile than thousands of other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.248.87 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got it that not all gay mean speak this way

But is it really necessary to have 50% of the article stating that this is a stereotype and that some (BUT NOT ALL!) homosexuals speak this way? --Belchman (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is a pretty widely recognised occurrence; Every single person who has ever watched TV in the West (at least) understands what the "Gay Lisp" is and that it exist. That the article not only states once, but go on and on to state that it might even exist is pretty strange. 207.61.204.116 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am deleting the part that says "non-natural"

I'd like to see a reference that can prove it is a "non-natural" attribute of gay speech. I'm not saying that it's necessarily "natural" but until someone can prove that it isn't I think this is a typical homophobic/self-hating gay response to gay speech in English. 76.71.207.13 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because if it were natural don't you think that they would be able to find some scientific correlation between the two? --192.251.125.85 (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your conception of bigotry, tolerance, fear, etc is extremely confused. First of all, you do not tolerate things you like, think are good, etc. You tolerate things you think are bad, wrong, evil, etc. So people demonstrating their distaste for something in no way what so ever denotes hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc. However, based on the standards of intolerance you're putting forward, you're being intolerant of views which differ from you on the matter. You sir are a hypocrite of the highest, most self righteous, order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.88.141 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

/s/

4chan reference i believe, hurry up and fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.144.244 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


horrible web page

Looks like it's a "gay wash" here or something. You have on cited claim that "none has beenproven", when the very cite in question immediately after lists two studies that show that it was proven that the "s" was indeed pronounced idfferent in a statsitcally significant way. Garbage in garbage out. The writes of that stupid "poster", as they are not scientists/reserarchers, start with the complete non-sequeter and red herring angle that it's hard to figure out what exactly a "gay lisp is". There are so many logical flaws in that "poster" its mind boggling even the msot left wing university would host that utter nonsense.66.190.31.229 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question

There have been some studies that tend to suggest homosexuality in males may have a genetic basis. It is possible that the 'gay lisp' may be attributed to this slight genetic difference, or it may be purely cultural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.107.17 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

as science has demonstrated no link between sexuality and genetics, a more rational explanation would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.134.235.59 (talk • contribs)

Programming language?

I recently reverted this edit by Codeofdusk, who changed the lead sentence to be "The gay lisp, which is not a programming language is a..." Codeofdusk reverted my revert, so here we are. I do not see the relevance or the necessity in that statement. If there is indeed a notable programming language named "gay lisp", it can be disambiguated through conventional means. Certainly, the rest of the lead sentence and the article will make it clear that this article is not about such a programming language. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mz7: Sorry, it's a couple of friends of mine messing around. I told them about this edit which I encountered when I read the article for the first time; it lasted for nearly a week. They found it very amusing, as did I; it refers to this kind of lisp. I've semi-protected the article for a day. Graham87 15:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the follow up. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay lisp. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gay lisp. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Move to Gay English

@Fivejohnny5: Just a warning that there may be some push-back against your move. There seemed to be some support for "Gay speech characteristics", for example here. That said, "Gay English" seems fine to me as that covers most of the article's scope (even if a little strange to me for some reason). I have no idea however if that term is established in the academic literature like "Philadelphia English," "New York City English," etc. Wolfdog (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Title of this article, and other issues

Wolfdog and Fivejohnny5, regarding this and this, respectively, we go by what WP:Article title states, not our personal opinion on what is less judgmental. And a part of WP:Article title is WP:Common name. Per WP:Requested moves, titles that are likely to be contested should go through an official move request. Because of this, and because the move currently needs an admin's help, I will request there that the article be moved back. I will then drop a message at WP:LGBT, WP:Linguistics and the WP:Article titles talk page for opinions on what the title of this article should be. Also, Wolfdog, regarding this and this expansion you made, we shouldn't be using words such as "so-called," or scare quotes; this is per WP:SCAREQUOTES. You have also separated "gay lisp" from "vowels" when all of this goes under the same category in sources. When sources talk about the gay lisp, which almost always concerns only males, they talk about vowels. And you have also based a lot of the material on Benjamin Munson, which can be argued as WP:Undue weight. And I know that this speech-language-therapy.com source was in the article before your expansions, but it's poor and needs to be scrapped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that that "Gay English" probably isn't the best title for this article -- such a title seems to preclude an "Other languages" section and also seems to imply it would discuss more than just phonetics (e.g., discourse, lexicon, etc.). "Gay lisp" implies the article would focus just on sibilants, which is also not the case. I'm not sure what you mean by discussion of vowels being included in sociophonetic discussion of the so-called "gay lisp". Maybe a title of "gay accent" or "gay speech"? Or "Gay and lesbian speech" just to be explicit that "Lesbian speech characteristics" is in this article's purview? Re scare quotes/"so-called", one does see these to denote that this isn't an actual lisp, strictly speaking, even in popular sources: [1], [2], [3], Umimmak (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with either "gay accent" or "gay speech." Fivejohnny5 (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I tried to make the "so-calledness" of the "lisp" clear enough. Anyway, due to Ammarpad's rollback, we will now need a formal move discussion to get a consensus from editors about what the best title would be. Again, "gay speech characteristics" received decent support from editors on a previous discussion; that's how I chose it. However, I see that this could possibly run into the article titled "Lavender linguistics" (whose existence I only discovered afterwards). Wolfdog (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Umimmak, Wolfdog and Fivejohnny5, I mean most of the research and commentary on this topic is under the "gay lisp" or "gay lisp stereotype" title; it's not under a "gay English" title. Just searching on Google (regular Google, Google Books and Google Scholar, but especially Google Scholar) shows this. Since the literature barely focuses on lesbian women, I don't think the title should include "lesbian" in it. That would be undue weight. And despite what Google Ngram and Google Trends indicate, I'm not seeing any solid sources discussing this topic under the "gay English" title. I do see sources under the "gay voice" title, but those are mainly media sources, like the New Yorker source that Umimmak cited above, and some are about gay speakers (those who bring LGBT awareness to matters). Not seeing much under the "gay accent" title either, and, when it comes to wording in sources, "gay voice" is more prevalent than "gay accent." I'm not seeing anything under the "gay speech" and "gay speech characteristics" titles, although I see some sources, such as this 2013 "Language and Gender" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 269, use the phrasing "gay speech." For example, the source states, "While this seems to support the common belief that gay speech is feminine, we need to step back to think about the state of the study of gay speech." Sources state "gay speech" rather than "gay speech characteristics" (which shows up better when you search "gay speech characteristics"). This 2003 "Language and Sexuality" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 136, which also uses the term gay lisp, states, "As we argued in chapter 4, 'gay speech' should not be taken as a descriptive generalization about the behaviour of real individuals in particular gay communities, for those individuals may not in practice display the speech characteristics that make up the ideological construct." So using "Gay speech" as the title might be fine even though "gay lisp" and "gay lisp stereotype" are more prevalent in academic research. I think that if we go forward with a move request, "Gay speech" should be the suggested title. Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-judgmental descriptive titles states that "non-judgmental descriptive titles" should not be about editors' personal opinions, and that "even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
As for Umimmak's comment about "discussion of vowels being included in sociophonetic discussion of the so-called 'gay lisp'," I mean that "gay lisp" is the main title although sources go on to clarify the "lisp" aspect. The article currently has "gay lisp" separated from "vowels" when vowels are usually discussed as part of the gay lisp topic, not as something that is separate from it. As for quotation marks and scare quotes, some sources do that, but we should not...per the aforementioned guideline. We can express doubt by clarifying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
vowels are usually discussed as part of the gay lisp topic, not as something that is separate from it Forgive me if this has been stated, but what sources discuss vowel production as part of the "gay lisp"? I've only ever see that term refer specifically to sibilant production, not as an umbrella term for all relevant phonetic variables.
Also: is there a consensus as to what this article is about? Is it focusing purely on sibilants, or phonetics in general, or any linguistic features which may index sexuality? Is it focusing on a particular stereotype/accent or how gay people actually speak in different contexts? Is it focusing on (White, mainstream, American) English or how this gets manifested across sociolects/dialects/languages? Is it focusing just on (the stereotypes associated with) the speech of gay (bi/queer?) men or also that of gay women? I think that needs to be decided first before a title is chosen. Umimmak (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A note to the other editors here that Fivejohnny5 has apparently just been banned for abuse. Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for note. He didn't strike me as newbie. He might rejoin this discussion under another account, although that would be a WP:Socking violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, Flyer22 Reborn I somehow missed your message at the top of this section (with myself tagged) until just now. I will read it now and respond soon. Wolfdog (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I understand, appreciate, and would have myself made many of the same points you did. Thanks too for doing all that extra digging. I'm happy to go with the flow. And, sorry, I didn't realize "so-called" fell under MOS:WORDS. Also, I again admit that I didn't realize the page "Lavender linguistics" already existed before broadening the scope of this page. (However, it seems to me that Lavender linguistics page incorporates much broader topics like the history of that linguistics sub-field and opinions of various linguists, and a lot of it reads like an introductory social-sciences course on LGBT issues. Its mix of large scope and specific details seems nauseating to me.) Anyway, I also second Umimmak's confusion about why we shouldn't separate the lisp (almost definitively a consonant topic) from vowel topics. Even if the research often lumps them together, isn't this just a general lumping of phonetic details that we can meaningfully separate and organize here? Umimmak, I also appreciate your concern about specifying the scope here and yet I don't think we want some name like "White, mainstream, gay American English" (though I know I'm probably exaggerating your point). Best to keep with something simple that follows non-judgment and the sources, as Flyer22 reminds us. How this will overlap with or bump up against Lavender linguistics is... ayayay... a whole other can of worms, I suppose. Wolfdog (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
My point was just that the sibilants are not indexical for sexuality in all dialects/languages and even when they are, it's not necessarily in the same way as the the so-called "lisp". If this is going to focus on other languages or other linguistics features then it's undue weight to title this article after one particular phonetic variable for one particular sociolect.
Anyway, I'm quickly looking at some sources and here are some terms I'm seeing used by some of the relevant scholars: Sociolinguistic research on the speaking styles of gay men has centered on identifying the features that constitute a monolithic speech variety, often referred to as Gay Speech or the Gay Accent. (Podesva et al. 2002); By gay English, I mean to imply a set of structural linguistic characteristics and lexical choices that might be perceived as markers of gay identity. (Barrett, 1995); GLB speech styles (Munson & Babel, 2007); Instead, research has documented the phenomenon of the ‘gay accent’ as perceptual in nature (Campbell-Kibler, 2010); One of the most developed areas of sociolinguistic perception research, the “gay speech” literature (Campbell-Kibler, 2011); [I]t is important to avoid labeling certain linguistic features as gay just because gays and lesbians happen to be using them; it is now a common practice for scholars of language and sexuality to problematize the inherent fixity of linguistic monoliths like ‘gay speech’ (though see Leap 1996 and Leap and Boellstorff 2004 for treatments of ‘gay language’; Radio, television, and movies are sometimes suggested as possible sources for a gay-sounding voice [...] the phonetic qualities which have been found to be indexical of gay-sounding speech (Smyth & Rogers, 2008); gay men's speech [...] gay male speech (Gaudio, 1994); These findings support the notion that gay-sounding speech does not constitute a single phonetic style (Zimman, 2013); Despite this, a small number of empirical studies have suggested that a distinctive GLB speech style does exist. (Munson et al., 2006)
To the extent the term "gay lisp" is used; I only see it w.r.t. sibilants: Associated with the popular stereotype of a “gay man’s lisp,” several studies have been able to link a speaker’s sibilant durations and perceptions of that speaker’s sexuality (Levon, 2006); /s/-fronting has received little attention, despite being the other widely known sound-based stereotype regarding the speech of gay men, to the extent that it is known as the “gay lisp.” (Campbell-Kibler, 2011); For example, author David Sedaris recollects how the group of boys with whom he attended speech pathology as a child for an /s/ misarticulation appeared to be a ‘Future Homosexuals of America’ organization (Sedaris 2001). This is arguably an illustration of perhaps the most widely cited characteristic of GLB speech style, the ‘gay lisp’. (Munson & Babel, 2007) If this article is going to be about more than just sibilant production, then the present title "gay lisp" is inaccurate.. Umimmak (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Wolfdog. Umimmak asked "what sources discuss vowel production as part of the 'gay lisp'?" Umimmak, I mean that when sources discuss gay lisp, the topic of vowels is usually also brought up, including in the "Perceptual Bias and the Myth of the Gay Lisp" source by Benjamin Munson. See this "vowel gay lisp" Google Scholar search. Or a search on regular Google concerning media sources. So, because of this, separating the lisp aspect from the vowels aspect seems artificial to me. Sources already note that the lisp isn't really a lisp, and that's really all we have to do as well when it comes to concerns about "gay lisp" being an umbrella term. For years, this article used that term to cover all of this material. If the article were to remain titled "Gay lisp," possibly due to WP:Common name, then having a "Gay lisp" section as separate from the vowels, "other characteristics" and "perception stuff" can appear confusing. As for the scope of the article, that there is a little discussion on lesbian women does not mean that the title should reflect lesbian women in it. Gay can also cover women, and there's the fact that the vast majority of research on gay speech concerns gay and bisexual (but especially gay) men. An article titled "Gay lisp" or "Gay speech" can cover a number aspects of the topic, including stereotypes, bisexual men, and the little data on women. All aspects of a topic are never reflected in article title. And our article titles are not always neutral; WP:Article titles makes this clear. Umimmak, I ask that you take take the time to read WP:Article titles. Looking at sources, it seems to me that "gay speech" would be the title to go with if we don't continue to go with "gay lisp." Human10.0 works on LGBT topics and is familiar with a lot of research on gay males. He might have an opinion on this. So might sexologist James Cantor. On a side note: There's no need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because discussion of vowels often is accompanied by a discussion of the lay term "gay lisp" doesn't mean that "gay lisp" is an overarching term that includes prosody, vowels, final plosive release, etc. Munson & Zimmerman's poster reads One prominent belief about GLB speech styles is that gay men ‘lisp’. -- they may discuss what gets called a "lisp" in popular culture but they themselves are not using "gay lisp" in a way that subsumes all the topics in the article as presently written. Umimmak (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, my point is that "gay lisp" is the most common title of choice (meaning what the source is titled or partially titled) when it comes to discussing all of that, which is why I'm not in agreement with you that the article being titled "Gay lisp" is a significant problem. In any case, I could support the article being tiled "Gay speech," and this is also per what you cited above in green. But we should still go through an official move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Where are you seeing this? Which scholars use "gay lisp" in this way? Where are you seeing "gay lisp" defines so broadly? Cameron & Kulick doesn't. Munson & Zimmerman doesn't. All of the papers I quoted above in green don't. This is not a standard usage of "gay lisp" -- let alone "the most common". Work on sibilant production might also mention other phonetic variables since they're also indexical to (perceived) sexual orientation, but this does not mean that these scholars use the term "gay lisp" in a way which includes all these phonetic variables. Umimmak (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we are misunderstanding each other. You talk about "defining gay lisp so broadly," when that is not what I have stated. Wolfdog seems to have gotten what I meant by stating above "even if the research often lumps them together [...]." Let me try again: Except for a few sources with "gay" and "male speech" in their titles, I see no sources, absolutely none, that are titled "gay speech" (or "gay speech characteristics") when discussing this topic, whether it be vowels or other aspects. By contrast, I do see sources titled "gay lisp" (in some way) that discuss vowels and other gay speech aspects. You stated "just because discussion of vowels often is accompanied by a discussion of the lay term 'gay lisp' [...]." That "often is accompanied by" aspect is exactly what I mean. The Munson and Zimmerman "Perceptual Bias and the Myth of the 'Gay Lisp'" source, unless I am confusing it with a different source I read earlier in the day, does discuss vowels; it discusses vowel-consonant sequences. I am arguing that the vowel aspect is not usually discussed separately, and sources usually focus on the gay lisp aspect, including in their article titles. You even cited a 2007 Munson and Babel source that calls the gay lisp "perhaps the most widely cited characteristic of GLB speech style." When I look at sources on gay speech, the sources are mostly concerned with the gay lisp aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
But is this article about gay(-sounding) speech in general or one particular aspect of one particular variety of gay(-sounding) speech? I don't know why you're so focused on what the title of a particular article is, instead of how the article itself defines and uses terms of art... But when papers aren't just talking about sibilant production then yes one sees titles like What is 'gay speech' in São Paulo, Brazil, The Queen's English: An alternative, biosocial hypothesis for the distinctive features of “gay speech”, Hegemonic masculinity and the variability of gay-sounding speech: The perceived sexuality of transgender men, Global talker characteristics and judgments of gay-sounding speech, Speaker attitude as a predictive factor in listener perception of gay men’s speech etc. A lot of the research centres on English-speaking men and /s/-production, yes, but this is only one aspect covered in this Wikipedia article. Umimmak (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"Gay speech" is obviously the least contentious title among just the three of us. Should we now be setting up the move request to hear some other voices? Wolfdog (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Wolfdog. Umimmak, I was focused on titles because of our WP:Common name policy. As should be clear by my "18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)" post above, I was looking from every angle when it comes to terms sources most commonly use to cover the topic. I was clear that there is also wording beyond the titles that the sources use, and pointed to "gay speech" as being the best option for this article if we don't stick with "gay lisp." So per Wolfdog, I think we should move forward with the "gay speech" title proposal. Because of the popularity of the "gay lisp" aspect, though, and the fact that it would redirect here after the move, it might be best to still mention and bold "gay lisp" in the lead or redirect it to a section specifically about it; both options are per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I think "Gay lisp" should be a section redirect to the part actually talking about sibilants of English speaking men. Umimmak (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Gay male speech. There's clear consensus that the current title is not viable, and this is the best supported option. Discussion of other options such as merging with lavender linguistics should continue. Cúchullain t/c 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Gay lisp → ? – The title here appears to no longer cover the scope of the article, though admittedly I myself made scope-widening edits before I realized the page Lavender linguistics existed, which covers a much broader scope altogether. I'm not sure where the line between the two pages should be drawn, and Umimak brings up the important point that perhaps we need to as a group figure out this article's scope even before naming it. Anyway, as the article currently stands, so far, a most likely candidate for a move—see the well-sourced above discussion between Flyer22 Reborn, Umimmak, and occasionally myself—seems to be "Gay speech" or some variation of it ("Gay-sounding speech", "Gay men's speech", etc.) per the sources and supported to a greater or lesser extent by all three of us (less so for Flyer22 Reborn), which outweighs other options like "Gay accent" or "Gay English". Wolfdog (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support moving the article to "Gay speech" per the arguments and sources in the #Title of this article, and other issues section above. "Gay-sounding speech" is unnecessarily lengthy, and not as supported as "gay speech" is. "Gay men's speech" also is not as supported as "gay speech," and limits the article to only men unless having a comparison section with regard to women is deemed fine regardless of the title. Our titles do not always reflect all of the content. "Gay men's speech" can also be taken as limiting the article to gay men when some sources talk about bisexual men as well. By contrast, "gay" can be seen as an umbrella term, as in "the gay community." It's true that women are not nearly as discussed as men are when it comes to gay speech, and so I object to any "Gay and lesbian" speech title or similar; sources are also lacking for such a title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Striking through the beginning of my vote for now. See points below in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move away from "Gay lisp" provided the article remains broader in coverage than just sibilants -- it's still unclear to me what the benefit of having information redundantly here and in lavender linguistics is. If there is a decision to undo the expansion and keep this just focused on /s/-production and its relation to the perception of sexuality among English-speaking men (or other languages where the same hyperarticulated /s/ has the same connotations), then no change is needed obviously.
  • No opposition to "Gay speech": I think ideally I'd just like to see a hatnote being like, not to be confused with LGBT slang or gay argots (isiNgqumo, Polari, etc.) and a clarification that this is only about phonetic aspects. Maybe also clarify that not all and not only gay(bi/queer/etc) people speak in such a manner -- this article isn't (only?) about how gay people actually talk, but (also?) what gets perceived as being gay-sounding.
  • I don't think there's as much consensus for this but I'd slightly prefer gay accent to gay speech only because "accent" is explicitly about phonetics whereas "speech" is vaguer.
  • In general the lede needs to do a better job at saying what this article is about. If the article isn't just about the so-called "lisp" then the lede should reflect that. But again there should be thought as to what this article vs the sections of gay and lesbian speech in lavender linguistics should cover.
  • I think I'd like to see a section on terminology since you do have academics who have objected to "gay speech" (e.g., Smyth), and that should be noted; presumably also since things like "gay accent" etc will be redirects here, they should be bolded in the lede as well. Umimmak (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Umimmak, you make a good point about the existence of the Lavender linguistics article. It covers transgender people as well, but it is essentially the Gay speech article. Because that article exists, I'm now thinking that this article should focus solely on the gay lisp topic or be specifically about gay male speech and linked to in the Lavender linguistics article as the main article for that topic. We could merge most of the gay male material from there to here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It might also be that this is thought to go into a lot more detail, and lavender linguistics is only an overview? I'm hesitant to voice strong opinions on what the articles should look like since I haven't been involved in editing either -- I just saw this in WT:LINGUISTICS and have strong opinions regarding this hypernymic use of "gay lisp". But I agree that this article could also be (re-)narrowed to the hyperarticulated /s/ in relation to indexing the male gay identity in English or also cover the similar phenomenon in other languages (e.g. Dutch -- Van Borsel et al). (Maybe even discuss things like /s/-deletion in São Paolo BP, which is neither a lisp, strictly speaking, or a "lisp" using folk linguistic terminology, but is still about how /s/ signals sexuality.) Umimmak (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Commented in the #Discussion section below about "only an overview." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Extensive results found in book searches - both non-fiction and in literature- and the term is even used by gay persons to describe the affectation themselves. Sources do acknowledge that its not a lisp in the conventional speech therapy meaning, but that has nothing to do with how we name the article, which is per WP:CRITERIA. The current title is recognizable, a natural search term, and concise. It may be a bit imprecise as above, but it would be WP:OR and WP:ASTONISHing for us to make up something different given the sources. ADDENDUM: Keep in mind that I have no opposition to a separate article to cover other speech affectations or linguistic quirks of gay people - just that this article is a notable topic which should be part of the encyclopedia on its own. -- Netoholic @ 15:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that this is still the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Netoholic and Rreagan007, I argued similarly in the #Title of this article, and other issues section above, but Umimmak argued that gay lisp "implies the article would focus just on sibilants, which is also not the case. I'm not sure what you mean by discussion of vowels being included in sociophonetic discussion of the so-called 'gay lisp'" and "[f]orgive me if this has been stated, but what sources discuss vowel production as part of the 'gay lisp'? I've only ever see that term refer specifically to sibilant production, not as an umbrella term for all relevant phonetic variables.'" What do you make of those arguments and his suggestion that we narrow the scope of the article to sibilants only? Also see the Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the gay lisp. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of this article and should not be included. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Then there would be only a single paragraph left. Why not merge all of it as I suggest below? —  AjaxSmack  18:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it is a distinct and notable topic on its own, which seems to have been overburdened by tangential information. Even if its put back to one-paragraph stub level, that at least provides a basic starting point for the core of this topic to be expanded without all the additional material in the way. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gay male speech I do not know what is best here, but the topic is broader than "lisp", and the article at lavender linguistics covers demographics beyond gay male. I think that I prefer lavender linguistics to become LGBT linguistics with this article being a subtopic under that heading. "Lavender linguistics" can be mentioned in a history section of that article as one researcher's name for a theory. This is a strange concept because so far as I know, pre-globalized cultures with no obvious connection to each other still had gay males with distinctive speech patterns which others can recognize without understanding the language or being familiar with the culture, and yet I think that bias against recognizing or discussing LGBT people in academic circles has prevented this issue from getting wide discussion. I suppose that research on this topic has only been possible in the past 15 years or so, because to even come up with a term for this there has to be acceptance of LGBT issues in academia plus the ability for sociologists in LGBT studies to travel the world freely. I do not think anyone here is presenting sources which establish a defined term for this. I do recognize that "gay lisp" is a common term, but I think that "gay male speech" is a broader concept for which "gay lisp" is only a subtopic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge this article with lavender linguistics. The coverage of gay lisp is only one small section of this article, the overall article is very short and it overlaps entirely with lavender linguistics. (If users then want to rename lavender linguistics as User:Bluerasberry suggests, go for it.) If there is no merge, then I support a move to another title if the current content is to remain in the article. —  AjaxSmack  18:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gay male speech, per what Bluerasberry and I stated in this move request above and below. Most of the gay male speech material at the Lavender linguistics article should be relocated here, and the "Lavender linguistics" article should be retitled "LGBT linguistics" or "LGBT speech." The term gay lisp should redirect to this article and should be mentioned in the lead since most people visiting this article will be looking for that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to gay male speech or merge with Lavender linguistics. Either way, the current name should not remain. In the UK this term is unheard of, and seems offensive, as a "lisp" is usually seen as a speech impediment. So even if it is the common name in the US, it is not WP:WORLDWIDE a common name.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Wolfdog, are you not going to vote? Or are you going to wait and see what others state? I thought you settled on "gay speech" as well? Also, given sources and support, why didn't you simply propose moving the article to "Gay speech" instead of leaving voters to ponder options? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I handled it the most diplomatic way I knew how. Also, I'm under the impression that it's obvious that the nominator wishes for a move to be made; I'm open to other options, so I guess I just don't outright jump right to "Gay speech." I will, however, admit that I prefer "Gay speech" over "Gay lisp." Wolfdog (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. As with WP:RfCs, the one who started the discussion can also vote. It's not always the case that the one who started a move discussion wants the article moved to the title, or one of the titles, being proposed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, WP:RM states that "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Where the nominator does not suggest a specific title in the proposal, it of course makes sense for the nominator to discuss reactions to names that end up being proposed. When a move request is opened for procedural reasons, that's usually noted in the request; otherwise, it's not advised to start discussions when you're not in favor of a move. Dekimasuよ! 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu, in the case above, it's not clear which title Wolfdog supports. This is why I made my "it's not always the case" line. He more so started the discussion because there is disagreement about the article's title and wanted/wants to hear other views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wolfdog, given what has been stated above (including by you) about the Lavender linguistics article, it's probably best that the move request be withdrawn and we instead focus on narrowing the article's scope. After that, if a rename is needed, we can do that. But as it stands, the Lavender linguistics article is the Gay speech article. I should have looked at it earlier, after you first mentioned it, but I haven't been functioning at full capacity these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't like the idea that we keep back-pedalling. Let's see what other comments are made. If the consensus in the next few days is for narrowing the scope first, we'll do that. A move discussion can also function as a useful way to determine the scope. (Incidentally, WP:ASTONISH being brought up above makes me chuckle, since I find nothing so astonishing as the term "Lavender linguistics". It's not a term I've ever heard, despite editing linguistics articles for many years, and certainly doesn't fall under my expectation for the name of an article about G/L/B linguistics, which probably explains how I've amazingly [astonishly] never stumbled upon it before now. ...The name almost seems tongue-in-cheek!) Wolfdog (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah to me the term "lavender linguistics" is a bit dated -- I personally associate it with research done in the 1990s/early 2000s. That said I still think that an article with that title should exist -- whether it's about that particular subfield/movement/era/whatever itself in a sort of "history of linguistics" sort of way or about how queer people use language or both might possibly be up for debate. Umimmak (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see that Umimmak is in favor of us now reducing the scope back to the hyperarticulated /s/. Since Umimmak and I were the only original two dissenters, I'm OK with withdrawing the request, though I don't see any formal way to do that at "WP:Requested moves". Can we keep the discussion going while no longer labelling it a move discussion? I still feel an article about gay (or gay-sounding) characteristics within North American English could easily merit its own page. This is different than an article specific only to /s/ variants as well as different than article about the entire history of LGBT linguistics and linguistic research (with even prescriptive language features discussed, like invented pronouns, e.g.). Wolfdog (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify -- I'm fine with either (1) this getting narrowed and just being about /s/ and still being titled 'gay lisp', or with (2) this being broadened and being titled 'gay speech' (just so long as it isn't redundant w/ 'lavender linguistics' -- maybe this goes into more detail on phonetics and the LL is only an overview or something). But I also think that the "lisp" is perhaps the most salient aspect in "folk sociophonetics" and there certainly is enough academic research on it, so there perhaps still ought to be an article with this title. I just dissent to the article as presently written (and where this article looks like it was headed) being titled "gay lisp". Umimmak (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I certainly prefer your (2) idea, which could cover a range of phonetic details while avoiding overviews of linguistic prescription in LGBT speech, the whole history of the field, or such topics with long-winded headings as "Issues with over-generalizations about sexual identities and linguistic styles". Wolfdog (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Wolfdog and Umimmak, I did wonder if the Lavender linguistics article should be retitled. If we validly can, we should go with a more recognizable title for it...per WP:RECOGNIZABLE (also known as WP:COMMONNAME). And it obviously won't do to have two articles about the same thing, which is why we are trying to decide if the Gay lisp article should be the main gay speech article, the main home for gay male speech, or an aspect of either. As long as the Lavender linguistics speech article exists, though, I don't see this article as being the main gay speech article unless we mean "gay male speech." But even in that case, a lot of what is in the Lavender linguistics article should be merged here. I'm not understanding Umimmak's commentary about overview articles since we don't really have those unless we are talking about a WP:Broad concept article. We do have the WP:Summary style guideline, which means that an article may have sections on topics and link to the main articles for further detail. This is why I suggested in the Survey section that "this article should focus solely on the gay lisp topic or be specifically about gay male speech and linked to in the Lavender linguistics article as the main article for that topic. We could merge most of the gay male material from there to here." As for withdrawing the request, simply removing the template and noting that you have withdrawn it takes care of that. Closing it with a template would also be ideal. But I just asked two opposers a question above. Let's wait and see if they state anything more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I like your ideas. @Flyer22 Reborn: Roger that. Wolfdog (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean, "lavender linguistics" is the common name for this particular movement/perspective/whatever of sociolinguistics which began in the 1990s, was named by William Leap, has papers at the annual "Lavender Languages and Linguistics" conference, etc. I don't see the need to rename it after nearly a decade of people being able to find the article just fine. Add it to hatnotes or see alsos or make new redirects if you're concerned. In any event that discussion should involve the page-watchers of that article.
  • Perhaps my wording was unclear when I said "overview" but you seem to understand what I meant with the WP:Summary style. That is, it won't be redundant if Lavender linguistics has a section on phonetic marker of gay-sounding speech (e.g., "Traits believed to characterize the speech of gay men") which briefly summarizes the content in an article which is entirely about that particular aspect.
  • But it looks like there's a growing consensus to narrow this article's focus to just sibilants; in that case I don't see the need to change lavender linguisics except maybe to link gay lisp in the article text somewhere instead of just in the See also section. Umimmak (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've made my own opinion clear enough, but here's how I stand. Either (A) there should be a "Lavender linguistics" page (regardless of what name it takes) and a separate "Gay male speech" page (perhaps narrowed down to English- or North American English-language info only) which includes (like now) a heading of "Gay lisp"; or (B) there should be a "Lavender linguistics" page, a "Gay male speech" page, AND a third page entitled "Gay lisp". All three topics are justifiable topics. I'd disfavor merely ending up with only a "Lavender linguistics" page and a "Gay lisp" page. Wolfdog (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Umimmak: I disagree with your assertion that readers are finding the right article. The article currently titled "lavender linguistics" has the content which I think most people who visit "gay lisp" want, just because no one except an academic in the field could search for the jargon term "lavender linguistics". See the traffic - gay lisp got 144k in 2017 versus LL got 39k. I think that readers are trying to find information about "why do LGBT people talk differently" and then a subset of those cares specifically about the linguistic element of a lisp, and certain other subset of those cares about the United States-based academic theory of the phenomenon. With traffic this high we are not seeing primarily academic interest. This is a pop culture topic and ought to be styled primarily for that audience. I do agree with you that "lavendar linguistics" and "gay lisp" seem to be the concepts with the most and highest quality sources describing them. The other concepts might be on shaky sourcing due to there not being a specific term which various sources use in common when describing the same topic.
@Wolfdog: I want gay lisp, lavender linguistics, LGBT speech, and gay male speech to all have separate articles. A new Category:LGBT speech could be the top level category and contain the existing Category:LGBT_linguistics. I do not think there is any need to draft new content now, but instead, we could re-arrange the text in these existing articles to establish these new articles. I would like most readers to land on LGBT speech as the top level concept to establish the statement of fact that there is a global phenomenon of LGBT people practicing a subculture of speaking style including linguistic, accent, slang, and whatever other differences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I'm in complete agreement with the two big points you just made. Thanks for helping to word it so well! Wolfdog (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I also want to thank everyone for their collegiality. I don't think I've ever participated in such a long yet still-polite discussion on WP. Wolfdog (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
If there is going to be a major narrowing of the scope of lavender linguistics, I'd just want to make sure the page watchers there are involved in the discussion; maybe this would warrant new notices on WT:Linguistics and WT:LGBT who thought this discussion was only about the "lisp". I would be happy with the separate articles Bluerasberry proposes. However, it seems that the proposed LGBT speech article would cover more than just phonetics (with discussions of crosslinguistic argots, slang, discourse patterns, morphosyntax, etc.) I would just want to make sure that "Speech" in an article title is used consistently for LGBT speech and gay male speech instead of to discuss all language use in the former but just phonetic aspects in the latter. (Perhaps the article could also include discussion focusing on the speech of straight people and how they perform their heterosexuality through their language use; it's not the case that there is just a default and then queer people performing queerness. Perhaps "Language and sexuality" could be a title possibility, although that admittedly doesn't immediately lend itself to discussions of trans/genderqueer/nonbinary/etc language use.) It seems like there is consensus as to what to do with the article whose talk page we're all in, though. Perhaps the discussion envisioning the creation of related new and restricting of other articles should go elsewhere? Not sure where the best option is, though. Umimmak (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bluerasberry's suggestions, except for the idea that we should have a Gay lisp, Lavender linguistics, LGBT speech, and Gay male speech article. How would we validly distinguish between "Lavender linguistics" and "LGBT speech"? We would have a WP:Redundant fork or WP:POV fork. Furthermore, as I've noted before, the gay male speech topic mainly encompasses the gay lisp topic, with sources also noting that it's not really a gay lisp. Because of this, I'd prefer only two articles for this matter -- an LGBT speech (or LGBT linguistics) article and a Gay male speech article. AjaxSmack, would you also support just the two articles? Anyway, other than my disagreement with Bluerasberry, he's argued pretty much what I argued in this move request. We wouldn't really be narrowing the Lavender linguistics article; we would simply be relocating most of the gay male material here per WP:Summary style. And, Bluerasberry, I don't see that Umimmak was arguing that "gay lisp" seems to be a concept with the most and highest quality sources describing it. As seen in the #Title of this article, and other issues section above, I argued that more sources use the term gay lisp (at least in part) as the title of their sources when discussing gay male speech. Both Umimmak and I noted that inside of these and other sources, the term gay speech or gay male speech is noted/used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I support any number of articles as long as their titles accurately reflect the contents. I noted above that the actual material dealing with "gay lisp" is only a short paragraph, and that I see no reason why it cannot be dealt with together with other gay male speech material or with other LGBT speech material. However, retaining a gay lisp article is fine too, as long as its content is about a lisp per se. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I would want to confirm that consensus about changes to lavender linguistics (and its title/content) also involve its page watchers, and think further new discussion on the title/scope of that article go on its talk page and clarifications be made on the previous WT notices. (For what it's worth, I see a distinction in having an article about language as used by queer people and in the academic study of such language. Compare, e.g., Fall of the Western Roman Empire vs Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire; Gravity vs History of gravitational theory; Chinese music vs Chinese musicology.) I also think that there is enough literature/interest on just the "lisp" in particular to possibly warrant a separate article just on that aspect with a section in the gay (male) speech article written in summary style. If there is an article on gay men's speech, then obviously the section on queer women's speech should be moved elsewhere. Alternatively, the article can be on the phonetics of gay(bi/etc)(-sounding) speech in general, and include discussion of men and of women. Umimmak (talk) 23:08, 9 April 20
So have we reached a consensus on the next step? Do we need to set up a similar discussion on the Lavender linguistics page? And perhaps I should tally the editors in favor of keeping "Gay lisp" here? Wolfdog (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we need to set up a similar discussion on the Lavender linguistics page? I would say so--it seems like we're having two parallel discussions on this page. Umimmak (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The watcher count on that page is currently 57, but I doubt that the page has that many active watchers. Most of our talk pages have more watchers than are currently watching those talk pages. Still, a move proposal discussion should be had at that talk page before that article is moved, and relevant WikiProjects should be alerted to that move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's the current breakdown of practical next actions, according to the users who've been discussing. (Please feel free to edit the list, if I've misrepresented your view):

  • Flyer22 Reborn: Move this to "Gay male speech" and move "Lavender linguistics" to "LGBT linguistics" (or "LGBT speech")
  • Umimmak: I think my view would more accurately just be to make sure that the content and title of articles match and that there is a lede which clearly delineates the scope/purview of each article. So I would also be happy un-expanding this article to just be about the "lisp" and keeping its present title. Umimmak (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • This was meant to be an addendum to the now deleted above, with the I would also be happy; not sure why it was deleted, but to clarify again, other options would be happy include changing the title of the expanded article to something along the lines of Gay speech/Gay accent/etc leaving open the possibility for a separate article on just the "Gay lisp" in the future when that section gets longer. I also would be okay with moving the expanded article to something along the lines of Gay male speech provided discussion of the speech of queer(-sounding) women be excised. Umimmak (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Netoholic: Keep "Gay lisp" (but noted no opposition to separate articles for other gay speech characteristics)
  • Blue Rasberry: 4-way split of "Gay male speech"; "LGBT linguistics"; "LGBT speech"; and "Gay lisp"
  • AjaxSmack: Merge "Gay lisp" with "Lavender linguistics" [1st preference] or move to new title [2nd preference]
    • Later, all around approving of various ideas
  • Wolfdog: Move this to "Gay male speech" and move "Lavender linguistics" to "LGBT linguistics"
  • Amakuru: Move this to "Gay male speech" OR merge with "Lavender linguistics"

Does this seem like the current reckoning? Wolfdog (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I noted above, I'm more so for there only being two articles -- "Gay male speech" and "LGBT linguistics" (or "LGBT speech"). I don't see that "Gay lisp" needs to be an article separate from "Gay male speech." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll make the changes accordingly. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Umimmak: My apologies. I've been just trying to keep the list I made concise... to-the-point. Wolfdog (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the general consensus for at least this page is to move it to "Gay male speech". I'd be happy to perform the move and whittle down the scope to reflect that. Some major work will probably also need to be done at Lavender linguistics. Wolfdog (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is this not called gay lisp

The Wikipedia rules indicate that's what it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.186.76 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because the so-called “lisp” is only one salient sociophonetic variable which indexes being gay. This article is about all such variables (not even just those in English). Umimmak (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Article renaming suggestion

Requested move 5 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Gay male speech → Gay speech – It appears that "gay speech" is more widely used in the sources and scholarly literature than "gay male speech". Furthermore, "gay" as opposed to "gay male" is the common name for gay men's-related articles on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. I think it's best to have a more descriptive title in this case so that readers know from the beginning that this article only concerns gay men (although this can also be clarified in the first sentence). If it's to be titled "Gay speech," a hatnote should be placed at the top of the article pointing readers to the LGBT linguistics article so that readers who land here expecting to find information on women or about the LGBT community as a whole, because gay can also refer to women and to the LGBT community, will immediately know where to go for broader information. Pinging everyone who voted in the #Requested move 6 April 2018 discussion above: Wolfdog, Umimmak, Netoholic, Rreagan007, AjaxSmack, Bluerasberry and Amakuru. I know that Wolfdog is still watching the article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there even such a thing as "Lesbian speech" or "Bisexual speech" or "Transgender speech"? I'm not aware of this. As far as I know, gay men are the only letter in LGBT associated with a particular accent. I think "gay speech" is pretty clear. If it must be spelled out, a simple sentence at the beginning would suffice, as you suggested. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The cited literature has a context of assumption that this term applies to males. In Wikipedia we lose that context and for clarity using the full term "gay male" is best because of the risk of misunderstanding. "Gay" sometimes refers to females, but this article refers to males. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no "lesbian lisp" or "lesbian accent" though, so why would it be necessary to clarify? This is a gay specific trait. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless someone can provide any evidence/data preferring one over the other, I'm neutral. Wolfdog (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Not everything has to be spelt out in painful detail. "Gay" is absolutely more common than "gay male" when referring to topics like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_male_speech/Archive_1&oldid=1136753830"