This category is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This category is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
LGBT is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The first problem I see in categorizing first century Roman emperors under this label is that none were women or lesbian. None thought of themselves as women that we know of. They did not claim their non-biological gender. They practiced homosexuality, but that is the only thing that can connect them with this contemporary societal label. The second problem I see is that I doubt that many people who adopt this label for themselves would want the Roman emperors associated with them. Nero married an adolescent boy and castrated him. Is that the same brand of homosexuality that contemporary gays would put forward as good? Lastly, all of the foregoing points to my conclusion that labeling ancient people with a contemporary perspective is problematic because the it is trying to force a way of thinking alien to a time onto that time; the lesson definition of anachronism. In using the label anachronistically, it works against the LGBT agenda because it is attempting to say that eccentric forms of sexuality are normal because they have always existed. If that is true, then homosexuality is violent and vile after the examples of the emperors. There is either more truth than intended or there is an unintended association. McArchitect (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being gay, the G in LGBT, is the only requirement for an individual being considered to be in the LGBT+ group. While it is true that this is a contemporary modern label, and Romans did not think of sexuality or gender in the same way, being LGBT would be what they would be the closest analogue in modern society, and is communicates information easily to those less versed in Roman culture (as well as the fact that attraction to those of your same sex/gender is all that is considered necessary to be gay in modern society).
As for your second point, you seem to misunderstand the LGBT+ and LGBT+ rights movements. While it is true that there are some organization and political movements which do, or have pushed for LGBT+ rights that have enjoyed widespread support from LGBT+ individuals, LGBT+ people have a variety of different opinions and beliefs, and are no means uniform in their beliefs, interests or actions. Some groups made up of, or that are supported by LGBT+ people actively argue against their interests, further demonstrating this. There is, therefore, no cohesive and unified 'LGBT' agenda. Furthermore, the behaviours of any given individual do not define or represent a given unrelated trait or identity which they share, which seems to be implied with the comments about the 'brand of homosexuality'. RUVampyr (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
