Talk:LGBT travel

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have eliminated Oklahoma City from the list as it is not a major destination for the GBLT travler.


I'm thinking about creating a "homophobia" MediaWiki template for simultaneous inclusion in several articles that are listed as unsafe destinations on this page. The wording could be something like this:

"{{PAGENAME}} is considered an unsafe or unfriendly destination for GLBT travellers. See the Gay and lesbian travel page for details."

It could contain graphic elements in the future but for the time being only the text would be ok. Does that sound fine? -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:23, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Could you change "is considered" to "is"? Then I'm OK with it. --(WT-en) Evan 09:50, 1 December 2006 (EST)
I'm not OK with it -- any info on why destination X is unsafe belongs in the page of X, not a separate page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:57, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Why is this needed over the stay safe section? -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 14:51, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Andrew, sorry but I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Anyway, if you're questioning the existence of the "Dangerous destinations" section of this article, I wouldn't say it is needed over the stay safe section. I think it's a good source for contributors who would like to later develop the stay safe sections of the nearly 100 countries listed there - I doubt anybody would want to write them at once - and having the countries listed here is better than relying on external links and sources over which we have no control. As for the template itself, I've thought it over and now agree with Jpatokal - the details should be in the destination articles and in this case templates are not a good choice for inclusion of detailed information for each particular place. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (EST)
I was referring to the template, not this article. I can see why this article would be useful, but I was wondering why a template should have been used, however, since you're in agreement with Jani it doesn't really matter. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:30, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Homophobic edits[edit]

Recently there has been a rash of attacks from certain users who keep changing "gay" to "perverted" and so on. Is there a mechanism in Wikivoyage that locks and/or bans users from editing a page?--(WT-en) Bud001 04:14, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, admins can protect pages, we've got an eye on this one :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 05:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)
I think this has gone on long enough. Shall we protect the page? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 17:52, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I just protected it, but was not sure how to set duration so ended up with protection duration of forever. That neds to be turned off in a day or two. (WT-en) Pashley 18:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Agree with short term protection. Also glad to see someone else found the "Expiry" field to be vague. I had to ask Bill. (WT-en) OldPine 18:58, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Just specify the protection as "1 day." It isn't "certain users," it is one user who jumps from open proxy to open proxy. A systematic fix is being proposed (one which btw may counter some other trolls and vandals), but it'll take some time, so for right now, all anyone can do is counsel patience and do reverts as needed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Where is that proposal being discussed? (WT-en) Pashley 19:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)
It's at Project:Community policies, I believe. --(WT-en) OldPine 20:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I just changed the protection to allow no anon users for 10 days. Seemed the best way since our vandal comes in from anon proxies. If another admin wants to alter that, I've no strong objection; this was just my guess at a good limit. (WT-en) Pashley 04:34, 30 November 2007 (EST)


Here you go... now protected. :)

What on earth is going on here!??!? This is so messed up it should be deleted or at least protected. 06:01, 23 November 2007 (EST)

The troll-fu is weak in this one. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:40, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Vote for deletion[edit]

An anonymous user suggested this article be deleted. It wasn't. See Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007#Gay_and_lesbian_travel for the discussion.

I have removed the claim that Glasgow is host to Scotland's largest gay population as it is a nonsense to suggest data exists which could verify that. Edinburgh might just as easily have a claim to that title, but equally as this cannot be proven the comment has been removed.

GLBT laws and "the map"[edit]

So, I am translating this into the swedish language version of Wikivoyage and come to the phrase "...The map on the right shows the legal status of homosexuality in countries around the world...". But - where's the map?? (WT-en) Riggwelter 18:14, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but I think there was a licensing problem with the one on Wikipedia. That or it just wasn't updated enough to include. I'd remove that phrase, but perhaps a perusal of the GLBT laws images on Wikipedia would be better. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:26, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


Is there a reason why Russia isn't somewhere in the article? 11:50, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

I've added Russia to LGBT travel#Homophobia based on [1]. K7L (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Do you think Turkey should be placed in the Middle East instead of Europe? The racial make-up of Turks is more Middle Eastern than European, so those who are interested in Middle Eastern gay life would be interested in Turkey, especially since most of the Middle East is so against homosexuality. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

I'd say virtually all gay nightlife takes place in European Turkey. Certainly the one listed location falls firmly in Europe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
I meant that the Turkish people are Middle Eastern so those interested in meeting homosexual Middle Easterners would probably be more interested (or have a more particular interest) in Turkey than those interested in the European gay scene who would probably look to Amsterdam or somewhere in Western Europe. Since gay travel of this sort is often about finding men/women of a particular race or physical make-up, it would probably be more helpful to list Turkey as a Middle Eastern listing. Otherwise, aside from Israel, the message is that gay travel to places where there are many Middle Eastern people (the Middle East) is dangerous, illegal, and basically not possible. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:14, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
I tend to think gay nightlife in Istanbul, even on Istiklar, is still pretty ballsy... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:20, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
Hmm... But not so ballsy when the other options are Iran or Saudi Arabia? Things are certainly rough for the homosexual with an interest in Middle Easterners, but as one of the only viable options, Turkey should be there. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:24, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

GLBT? LGBTQ?[edit]

How come the title is LGBTQ but the article uses GLBT? Don't we need to make it a little more consistent? (WT-en) Texugo 03:11, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

And what does Q stand for? I presume it's for queer (?), but isn't that already covered by G? If anything, right title should be LGBTT, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and transvestite, but I wouldn't mind a return to former title of Gay and lesbian travel (which I think was much better than whole this capital letters stuff). In fact, move was performed by a fairly new user, without a discussion as far as I can see. – (WT-en) Vidimian 03:45, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
The 'Q' is a fairly recent addition that most people (including GLBT members themselves) don't really understand or find necessary. The change of L(esbian) first over G(ay) is a "progressive" feminist move. I also think that "Gay and Lesbian Travel" sounds better. New users shouldn't be moving a page like this without discussion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:34, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
The Q is "queer or questioning," while the T is "transgender," which is a more catch-all term. This is definitely an Americanism (I think). I don't care too strongly either way about the naming, although I know that some will find "gay and lesbian" a bit more narrow than they would like. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
I think the only people who would be offended would be those who like to pretend to be offended by everything (probably a straight person with no affiliations to any part of the GLBTQRSTUVWXYZ community). From a traveler's perspective, you are either going on a gay-themed trip or to a (Gay) Pride Parade or you are not. Even if a bisexual or transexual gathering were placed on the page, that doesn't make it offensive. The difference between gay travel and just travel is the homosexual experience. Just doing a search, a lot of sites just say "Gay travel", but "gay and lesbian travel" looks better than jumbling letters. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:22, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
One more vote for plain English instead of acronym jumbles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 19:06, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
I'll voice support for simplicity—"Gay travel." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:23, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
I could support either the former title or Peter's suggestion. (WT-en) Texugo 22:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Can one of the admins please make the change to either "Gay travel" or "Gay and lesbian travel", as it seems there is a clear consensus above to use words over acronyms? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:27, 8 November 2010 (EST)

It's already done, but FYI, any user who has been registered for at least one month can move the article (no admin needed). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:47, 9 November 2010 (EST)

I thought if the page that you wanted to move it to was already created (as a redirect to the unwanted title), it had to be deleted by an admin before being able to move it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:19, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Whoops, indeed! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:03, 13 November 2010 (EST)


I see this is an old discussion, but the article is still inconsistent about mixing "LGBT" and "GLBT" (and other more obscure acronyms).

A quick search of WV shows:

  • "gay": 554 results
  • "lesbian": 234 results
    • "lesbian" -"gay": 10 results (meaning almost all pages with "lesbian" also have "gay")
  • "LGBT": 123 results
  • "GLBT": 38 results
  • "LGB" or "GLB": none (excluding results for Long Beach Airport, whose code is LGB)

But, Wikipedia is quite consistent in using LGBT as a catch-all acronym, and it's widely understood on the rest of the Internet as well. I'm in favor of editing this and any other pages to use "LGBT" as the standard acronym. For destination pages, I think it's fine for them to use either (if a bar is a gay bar, call it a gay bar and not a LGBT bar, which might be more inclusive than the bar actually is), although maybe we can set up a pride flag template to be used in listings that includes the text "LGBT" to aid search engines? user:Bigpeteb 16:20, 24 July 2013

If something is being marketed just to one of the subgroups (for instance, a bathhouse which admits no women or a leather bar aimed specifically at "bears and otters") then list it as that specific subgroup. Adding groups to acronyms just for the sake of political correctness is not helpful unless the destination actually has something to offer each of those groups. The "gay community" is prone to adding these labels indiscriminately; adding T to a peer-counselling "gayline" which has no actual transsexual/transgender info available or to a sports club who hasn't put any thought into where a transperson is to change into swimwear or gym clothes looks politically correct but is quite useless. K7L (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Links in "LGBT laws" section[edit]

Per xl, they should probably be deleted, but as they are helpful to travelers, I'd be inclined to overlook the variance with policy. What do you all think? Should we keep the ILGA link and eliminate the Wikipedia link? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy was intended to keep links to travel resellers out of destination city and region pages by linking only to a venue's own "official" site. I don't think that applying that same policy blindly to legal information makes sense. It would often be possible to link to official primary legislative sources for laws, but that has some limitations - they're usually written in legalese, the text of the law itself doesn't tell how it's being enforced, there are usually regulations that are published separately from the legislation and often a court ruling will establish a precedent which completely changes the legal situation in one jurisdiction. For instance, a law might still nominally be on the books but be completely unenforceable if a Supreme Court ruling found the legislation unconstitutional. K7L (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex tourism policy[edit]

Some of the discussion on the talk page for that article impinges on LCBT concerns, especially Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy#Cruising and the following section but several other places as well. Pashley (talk)

A lesbian mecca?[edit]

The use of Mecca as a metaphor in this article looks bizarre, in that it invokes an implicit comparison to a destination (Saudi Arabia) which is not a bastion of equal rights and freedoms for gay women. Does this look bizarre to anyone else? K7L (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Our article on Egypt and LGBT travel#Criminalization claim that homosexuality in Egypt is a crime; confirms the police harassment but claims "Homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt but those arrested are sometimes charged with offending public decency – or on spurious drugs charges." Which is correct? K7L (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

According to w:LGBT rights in Egypt, currently it's not specifically outlawed... but as your quote and other sources say, you're likely to be charged with indecency, so it's de jure illegal. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LGBT collaboration as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2014?[edit]

Greetings! I was wondering about the possibility of having a Wikivoyage collaboration related to LGBT travel, as part of en:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014. This would be for the month (or part of the month) of June, when pride celebrations often take place. Thoughts? Or, is there another avenue in which this discussion should take place? I'd be more than happy to update the Wiki Loves Pride page with details about the Wikivoyage project, if one comes to fruition. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition & its talk page. Pashley (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Another Believer (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


I just skipped through this article. I'd have to say for a supposedly Guide-level article, it strikes me as pretty weak, and a large part of that is because some of the listings in the "Queer friendly destinations" section seem overly touty to me. I'm too tired to find examples right now, but please look through it and see if you find any instances, especially where specific clubs or bars are mentioned, that go beyond helpful recommendation to promotional language.

I also noticed that the Copenhagen listing is telling people to go to another site for information. That's contrary to the point of this site, isn't it?

Another problem I'm seeing crops up, for example (and this is not the only time), in the listing for Marseille, which starts out seeming to talk up the city and then has contradictory remarks at the end, obviously from someone who read the earlier content and wanted to correct it but didn't do so in the most elegant way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this really a Guide article? -and- FTT for May/June 2017?[edit]

I was perusing [[Category:Guide topics]] in search of possible FTT nominees when I came upon this article, which I think could make a nice feature for May or June 2017 (Pride Month in most places is June). Now I have a much harder time judging the article status of travel topics than I do for destination articles, and Wikivoyage:Travel topic status is worded pretty ambiguously (as I suppose it has to be), but I have to question whether this article is truly Guide-level. It looks to me like a stronger than average Usable for sure, but not quite Guide. Again, though, I'm not what you would call an expert on travel issues for the LGBT community, so I'm not at complete liberty to say whether this article "covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions".

I'd love to hear other editors' opinions before I nominate the article officially, and if the consensus agrees with me that it isn't quite up to snuff yet, I'd also like some ideas about what might be added. In my view, this article is well on its way, with the main problem being an inconsistent level of detail in the listings in the "Queer-friendly destinations" section - most of the U.S. and Canadian and some of the European destinations boast pretty robust descriptions; others have only one sentence or none at all. Also, the information in "Dangerous destinations" needs to be converted to fully fleshed-out prose, the listings in the "Queer events and activities" section should be put in some kind of order - alphabetical, geographical, chronological, whatever - and we need to make a firm decision about which acronym we're going to use, GLBT or LGBT (my vote is on the more widely-used latter one). Is that all, or is there anything else anyone can think of?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing now that Ikan raised some similar concerns to mine last year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
While there's a lot of information here, the article is a rather listy. But as the article is about destinations around the world that are interesting and safe for LGBT travelers, maybe we cannot avoid having lists of destinations. Nevertheless many of the places (e.g. look at LGBT travel#Europe) do not have any descriptions and this needs to be resolved before the article is nominated. Moreover, the article needs more photos.
Also, given that virtually all of our (guide and near-usable) travel topics that are bound to a specific place (itineraries and the like) are from Europe and North America and can only be featured during the warmer half of the year, we should not use up these rare summer months. Instead we should feature universal articles LGBT on some other time of the year. For instance Sydney's and Sao Paulo's Prides and the Carnival in Rio (all taking place during the early year) can be good times. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not an easy article to keep up-to-date, due to its global scope. In some cases, there has been news coverage of the situation deteriorating in Turkey or Russia as the governments in those countries veer more dictatorial over time - and I've tried to update bits of this article piecemeal to indicate that gay pride events have been forcibly shut down, much like I've tried to update the list of countries allowing marriages as they make the news. That said, "Ireland plans to legalise gay marriage in 2015"? That looks to be in need of an update, much like the "Xtra!" gay newspapers in Toronto/Vancouver/Ottawa need to be updated to indicate the print editions look to have vanished a year ago, leaving just a website. And then there's the whole "bathroom bill" fad in the US in 2016, which replaced last election's silly season attempts to amend US state constitutions to restrict marriage. Most of the information here likely wouldn't merit a news headline if something had changed - laws are easily quantified, subtle discrimination less so.
I'd therefore expect this page to be a mix of some good information and some outdated or useless observations. If this were an article about one city? If we want to know whether everything's up to date in Kansas City, just ask someone who lives in Kansas City to double-check the page. If we want to know whether everything's up to date in LGBT travel, not so simple. A Project:LGBT Expedition was proposed years ago but left dormant as we don't have the people to implement this. We need some way to verify whether the content of this page is all accurate and current before considering it as an FTT. K7L (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In fear of sounding like a broken record on that issue, but almost half (47%) of this article has not been edited since the fork. Given the concerns about this article not being up to date any more, I would say this clearly precludes featuring in the current state. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


I suppose Finland has one of the "touty" descriptions mentioned above. And I am not sure the description gives the right impression. Sure, Tom of Finland is celebrated all over the place, our former president Halonen was chairman of an LGBT rights association and I am not a bit surprised that tourist offices maintain LGTB information. But I'd certainly not even join hands with a same sex partner in a dark alley in front of a gang in leather jackets.

So, official Finland and much of the population have a very supportive or at least relaxed attitude towards LGBT expressions, but I would still be careful in situations where violence for other reasons could be conceivable (mostly alone in the night, meeting frustrated drunk people). I am not an expert on this, but unless somebody with night life experience over here tells me I am just back in the dark days, I'd like to have some warning included.

I suppose the same worries are relevant for much of Europe. The rise of anti-refugee groups does no good to lessen my worries, as I associate them with general intolerance.

I am also not sure Touko Laaksonen or Tove Jansson are good example of tolerance: as child I supposed Jansson and Pietilä were just good friends, and Jansson taking her partner as avec to the Independence Ball 1992 was close to a scandal. They are however good examples of the current acceptance. Things have changed a lot in 30 years; it is just lately that homosexuality has gained general acceptance.

--LPfi (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree - it is too detailed and not really focussed on the LGBT destination aspect. Go ahead and edit. Ground Zero (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that I do not know the LGBT scene, so have a hard time judging what is correct and important (and I am confused about the intentions with the section), but I'll make a try. Somebody could try to salvage whatever I deleted needlessly. --LPfi (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Trim list of parades/festivals[edit]

Currently there are 18 bullet items in the Do section for pride parades or festivals. This is double the recommended 7±2. What criteria can we use to trim this down so it doesn't look like an undifferentiated list of the favorite parades of whichever editors contributed to the article? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We could make them lists by continent. Few would decide to go to Australia instead of South America because of a parade at the time of one's holidays. Then we have lists with about 1–7 points, which is anything but too many.
I find it a greater problem that the list of countries listed under "If you're not seeking out specifically queer events and activities, but want a hassle-free holiday, consider these destinations" for many countries lists LGBT events and venues, instead of giving practical advice for a hassle-free holiday. I suppose some measures are needed also in some countries without such discussion.
--LPfi (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This looks like a rather difficult list to keep up-to-date in any case. Changes to laws or actual violence might make the newspapers, but maintaining information like names of individual bars (which appear in some of the city descriptions)? They come and go frequently; it's difficult enough to keep our main destination guides current. The question of which city is more or less "tolerant" is also subjective. K7L (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The list of parades and festivals doesn't include bars.
The parades and festivals listed are major attractions for many travellers because they are well-established and occur every year. The events listed are not one-off things, but major annual events that in almost every case take place at the same time every year. There are many people who travel in order to attend pride festivals, or time their visits to countries in order to take in the festival while they are there. Listing by continent would be a reasonable way of sorting them. Ground Zero (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Do we need such a long section on terminology? Why don't we explain what we mean by the term we use, "LGBT", and leave it at that? Is this the place to discuss other terms that are not used in the article? Wikipedia has a more comprehensive article that we could ever have. I propose replacing the current section by this:

In this article, "LGBT" is used as an all-inclusive term, and it should be read to include other groups not explicitly included: "Q" for "queer" and "questioning", "I" for "intersex", "A" for "asexual" and "ally", "2S" for "two-spirited", etc. "Gay" is often understood to refer to homosexual men, but it is sometimes used as an umbrella term, such as in "gay pride parades" or "gay culture", to include all parts of the LGBT community.

I think that says enough about the terminology used in the article. Ground Zero (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good change to make. The main concern I have, which was first raised many years ago in #GLBT? LGBTQ? above, is figuring out a consistent terminology for WV to use. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that in the intervening period, LGBT has become the commonly used term. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Queer friendly destinations[edit]

There are many listings here that seem to offer not much more than a bar and tolerance of LGBT people. Moncton and Saint John, New Brunswick are fine places, and each has a bar, and you're not tplikely to be bashed, but they aren't destinations for LGBT travellers. I travelled through eastern Quebec and the Martinez with my husband, and never experienced hostility or aggression, but we weren't looking for LGBT destinations, which is what this list should be about. Any objection to me starting to cull? Ground Zero (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I've removed a few, including some cities that were listed without any explanation of why they are queer friendly destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Toilets and sex/gender[edit]

I am confused about transgender people allowed to "use public toilets of their choice [only] after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery", or "of their biological sex" because changing legal gender is impossible where they come from.

There are probably few toilets where you are required to show an ID or documents on completed surgery, so the legal sex should be irrelevant. Can you be sued afterwards when it turns out you are transgender? It is also unclear what one's biological sex is regarded to be after sexual reassignment surgery (I suppose it changes regardless of chromosomes and legal issues), or in the cases of anatomically non-binary persons.

So I suppose the problem is rather about entering a toilet when your appearance as dressed suggests you are of the other sex. There is of course an additional problem if you have to do your things without a private booth. The latter problem seems to be much greater (read: more common) at shared dressing rooms and shared showers. There you may have an additional problem if you enter as patron of a hotel or similar, where you have booked a room stating name and/or gender, which may differ from where you feel comfortable.

(As one non-binary person told: asking friends what sex (s)he should play today, they might reply "uhum, you are wearing a dress, so use the toilets for females".)

This is certainly very real, confusing and frustrating for transgender people. I hope we can come up with some good advice for most of these problems.

--LPfi (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I might be speaking out of my depth here, but why is it Wikivoyage's place to advise anyone on how to deal with issues such as which toilet to use? This is marginal to travel at best. Surely there are more targetted websites, charities, government bodies (etc) out there that deal with the issues you raise in a far more comprehensive, sensitive and helpful way than we can ever do. I would also imagine that transgender and non-binary people have their own strategies such that any advice we can offer them would be perceived as obvious at best, and patronising or insulting at worse if it becomes clear that Wikivoyage editors don't have a grasp / direct experience of the issues and don't know what they're talking about.
So again, perhaps I am failing to understand the issues in question, but I feel our role should be simply to inform transgender and non-binary travellers of local laws and norms, and more importantly to spell out any laws and customs that pose an inherent threat to said travellers' safety, liberty and comfort during their trip.
However, if we do have people on our editing team with experience of the issues at hand, they would be best placed to lead this discussion and to decide what level of advice is required. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. It is not sure, however, that the people involved have strategies that work worldwide, or networks that allow them to get that advice. The areas where the advice is needed the most are probably not the ones with information readily available. So if we are able to provide useful advice, we should. Anyway, I find the Public toilets section confusing, and if the content is useful, it should be stated in a less confusing way. --LPfi (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide some examples, in California and New York, I can use a toilet of my choice simply by declaring my gender to be such. For instance, even if I am dressed like a man, behave like a man and am biologically male but choose to identify as a woman, I can legally use the ladies' toilet. On the other hand, in Singapore, that would be illegal unless I undergo sex change surgery. The dog2 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that means I could use the ladies' room in California when I want to, without declaring anything other than by the act of entering there (am I right?). I suppose I could do that in Finland also, just getting confused or angry gazes (or just being ignored). Explaining I am a woman although I do not look like one could perhaps score some goodwill, perhaps not. I suppose there is a bigger risk in Singapore for me to get reported, and then I'd need the documentation, but am I expected to show those documents on entering? For the papers, I suppose a passport with "sex" given as woman would suffice, or do I really have to carry the surgery reports (in a language locally understood)? --LPfi (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In either Singapore or the U.S., I don't think immigration is concerned with whether or not you are transgender, so long as you don't break any laws. But what I know is that in Singapore, you need to undergo sex change surgery in order to change your legal gender. The dog2 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If using the wrong toilet in Singapore could potentially get you arrested, that and other information of this nature is definitely worth including, if you both are reasonably confident of its accuracy. We don't want to get anyone into trouble if we provide dodgy info. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
People will probably cut you some slack in Singapore if you are at least dressed like a woman and behaving like a woman, but if you appear to be a "normal" male but decide to declare that you identify as a woman and use the ladies' toilet, you could potentially be arrested for that. They might be more strict if you are using a communal shower though. The dog2 (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Gay saunas[edit]

The Sauna article directs here for "gay saunas". Should the term be explained here or the reference be removed from there? --LPfi (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the reference from Sauna is good. I can't think of a better page to link to; it's not really sex tourism, and it is somewhat unique to LGBT. So I guess we should figure out a way to incorporate a mention of gay saunas/bathhouses into this article. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Brunei boycott[edit]

Celebrities Boycott Sultan of Brunei’s Hotels as Anti-Gay Law Goes Into Effect Pashley (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkey queer-friendly?[edit]

Turkey was removed from the list of queer-friendly destinations as it doesn't seem to be one anymore, but the removal was reverted.

I agree that the information is valuable, but is this the right place? I see that the next section, of "somewhat safe" destinations, is about places where anti-gay laws are not enforced. Turkey doesn't seem to match there either.

Would it be time to rework the lists, merging them to one, where queer friendliness would be clearly marked (colour coded?), but not affecting the order? The present arrangement works for friendly destinations, as long as those are few, but works less well when not only friendly and hassle-free destinations are mentioned and the list grows long.

--LPfi (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, another blunder due to mobile editing. Didn't see that the info was under that particular heading.
A colour-coded list of countries might be handy, but what about individual cities: are those still needed? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion and LGBT[edit]

A passage was added about Islam and Christianity frowning "strongly" upon homosexuality. I am not sure that that is correct. The quotes from the Bible are about promiscuity as much as homosexuality (so they say nothing about faithful same-sex relations) and over here many priests, even some bishops, support same-sex marriages. So is it the religions themselves or some mainstream or common interpretation that is anti-gay? I did not find any good wording to express that nuance. --LPfi (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you take it literally and ignore commentaries from the last couple of millennia or so, the Bible also supports polygyny, slavery and kings having as many concubines as they like. It's more accurate to say that many fundamentalist Christians and other Christians, Muslims and Jews frown on homosexuality while others do not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not even sure we need this passage at all, because really, "frowning upon" gay folks is cultural, not religious, as shown by the usually divergent attitudes toward homosexuality vs. adultery and premarital sex. Of course I recognize that there are countries like Saudi Arabia where all three are punishable by death, but those are quite exceptional. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
At least in Singapore, the main reason why the government has not legalised male homosexuality is due to pressure from the Muslim and Christian communities (though to the government's credit, they're not enforcing the law). Every time the LGBT community holds a rally for LGBT rights, you'll find the Muslim and Christian religious leaders coming out to oppose them. From my readings, the reason why the level of homophobia in Uganda is so extreme among the general population is because of influence form American Evangelical pastors. And in Nigeria, while the Muslims and Christians fight over many things, the one thing they were united on was the passing of stricter laws against homosexuality. In Russia, my understanding is that the resurgence of homophobia is due to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, though they're still nowhere near homophobic as the American Evangelicals. And as previously mentioned, there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran that execute people for homosexuality.
So while it's true that not every Muslim and Christian is homophobic to the point of wanting to commit a genocide of gays, I think it is safe to say that homophobic attitudes in many parts of the world trace their origins to Islam or Christianity. The dog2 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
But there are quite a few Christian denominations that are fine with homosexuality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, that's a development I'm hearing of for the first time here. I know of Christian and Muslim individuals who are accepting of gays and lesbians, and have homosexual friends, and I know that some churches allow gays and lesbians to join the congregation in the hope that God will eventually turn them straight, but I was under the impression that both Islam and Christianity consider homosexuality to be a sin that must be condemned. This is my first time hearing of entire denominations that are accepting of homosexuality. If you really know more about it, than go ahead and make the adjustment. The dog2 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
You've been in the U.S. how long? And this is the first time you're hearing about this? Have you heard that there are gay and lesbian Episcopal bishops? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The dog2 has a tendency to add content based on overgeneralizations, media exaggerations, or inaccurate stereotypes. I pointed out the problem some time ago, and I'm disappointed to see it continuing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, this is my first time hearing of gay and lesbian Episcopal bishops. I know of churches that accept LGBT people into their congregations, but not of gay bishops. In fact, all my practising Christian friends disapprove of homosexuality to one degree or another, while those who are completely fine with it are mostly just nominal Christians who hardly go to church, if at all. The dog2 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Do some investigation. There's a Dutch Reformed church around the corner called Middle Collegiate Church that celebrates gay and trans people and its congregation is mostly gay. Many denominations in the U.S. are pro-gay. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The United Church of Canada (a Methodist/Presbyterian church that is the largest Protestant church in the country) as been allowing its ministers to perform same-sex marriages since 2003. The Anglican Church of Canada (Episcopal) is the second largest Protestant church. It allows its provinces to set policies permitting the performance of same-sex marriages. These are not "holy unions" -- they are marriages. These denominations are fine with homosexuality. Ground Zero (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For heaven's sakes, the Roman Catholic Church is not even among the most LGBT-tolerant denominations, yet there's one in my town that flies the rainbow flag and frequently has messages on the sign out front along the lines of "God loves everyone, no exceptions" and the like. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
And now there was a campaign in Germany, with many catholic congregations having services where LGBT couples were blessed, partly to put pressure on the Vatican, who does not accept the act. –LPfi (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of debates around homosexuality in various faiths/denominations and whether churches/God condones homosexuality or whether modern Christians are being led astray by societal acceptance of sins (which also includes adultery, premarital sex, gluttony, etc.) and ideas of "moral relativity" and not adopting any strong convictions about anything so as to avoid offending someone. However, I think this is all mostly off-topic. The sentence in question doesn't seem to be adding anything that isn't already stated in other places that are more country-specific and therefore more helpful. Even if it's true that increasing Islamic populations coincide with a decrease in acceptance or tolerance of homosexuality, I'm not sure that point needs to be stated. Maybe in specific city articles in the UK, France, or wherever where people might have false images of there being no issue city or nationwide when in fact certain areas have become dangerous to openly display homosexuality, it would be worth mentioning, but just as a general comment, it's not particularly insightful or helpful.ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)