Jump to content

Talk:Straight ally

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyjenkins2002 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Fairyzizi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnguytono.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahmyers10. Peer reviewers: Hannahazimi, Celinewherritt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PranavDawar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

The introduction seems unnecessarily verbose, and i am wondering if the simplest solution to the messy list of straight allies section would be to create a new page for prominent Straight allies and link it in. If there is not enough to warrant a new page perhaps we can create a page for prominent/celebrity gay rights activists? Or more likely just add their names to the list of LGBT rights activists? --Kooperfan (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga

[edit]

I'm removing Lady Gaga as an example of a famous 'straight ally' as she is bisexual. [1] --Kooperfan (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Kylie Minogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.180.147 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize tag

[edit]

Can we make this article a bit less US-biased? Out of 13 "prominent examples" of straight allies, all but one (Theron) are American. This is an international encyclopedia, not a US one. (Why haven't I edited myself? Because I don't know enough to do so... but someone must.) 81.158.1.214 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Brits Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, and Aussie Kerry Nettle. It's still American-heavy though, so I'm leaving the tag in place. — coelacan talk — 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I just would like to comment that the reason the list is so US-centric may be due to the fact that the issue is rarely as polarizing elsewhere. In Britain, whilst there are of course homophobes in positions of power and influence there are a great number of politicians who could be defined as "straight allies" and yet this is not a particularly remarkable thing about them. Certainly in Sweden one could argue that the vast majority of politicians and public figures (Carola excepted of course :) ) are archetypal straight allies, however, the situation in this country (and many others) is such that this isn't especially noteworthy and thus it is difficult to assign any one individual as being this without including them all. Maybe this article could be improved by defining the concept of "straight allies" as being precipitated by societies with lesser rather than greater tolerance of homosexuality due to the fact that such individuals stand out more. Alternatively, just tell me to mind my own business. Thanks for listening.Intesvensk 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about saying that the issue is "rarely" as polarizing outside the United States. As we are seeing a trend of more and more countries becoming theocratic, we are starting to see more situations where LGBT persons' lives are being threatened, both by governments and fellow citizens. We must find allies where we can, inside or outside our own countries.24.50.151.156 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bono

[edit]

I'm removing Mary Bono, because:

That's not the action of an ally. There's probably another Republican who can honestly go on this list, but I do not know of one. Any suggestions? — coelacan talk — 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

Should the people who are examples of straight allies be people who have defined themselves as straight allies (or something similar)? Rather than a list of people who's statements and actions we judge to be those of a straight ally? abexy 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much talk about this, but let me also add: people who other sources (other than themselves) have called straight allies (or a synonym). Places like the Gay and Lesbian Task Force or the Human Rights Campaign, or even news articles. I just think a lot of the examples are hinging off a sort of "objective" definition. abexy 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't President Obama a strong ally?

[edit]

With the exception of same-sex marriage, Barack Obama supports virtually all aspects of gay equality. If so, why not include him into the list?Пипумбрик (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone who is against same-sex marriage could possibly be called an ally...Spock of Vulcan (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true anymore, so I edited to reflect. Countered (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat list

[edit]

The list of straight allies is very messy in terms of layout. If nobody objects in the next few days, I am going to reformat it to make it neater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain3217 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List

[edit]

The list is the main focus of the article right now. It is polarizing to international readers, difficult to define valid criteria for inclusion and frankly ends up being a bit of a popularity contest. Do we add Brad and Angie because of their stance on marriage? Do we add any and all parents? (I just read about Ally Sheedy's daughter) Do we add Jodie Foster? ('nuf said). Finally, does it really add to someone's understanding of the subject; what is an Ally; specifically a GLBT Ally.

I would love to get some help fleshing out this article to the point where we could just REMOVE the list and eliminate the issues... Anybody? If I get back here in the next while, I will try to put in the "Straight, but not narrow" guidelines -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Play?

[edit]

I think the You Can Play campaign would be great for this article. Just not sure where. 108.172.37.34 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a video that can be used for a citation (which also mentions the gay-straight alliance at the end): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqIeFbTrfjc 108.172.37.34 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of allies

[edit]

I think this page could be more informative if opened up to become a general "ally" article, since the term is also applied to male feminists and abled allies of disabled people. Muffinator (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "straight ally," as covered by WP:Reliable sources on the topic. We don't yet have an Ally article, and this is likely because Wikipedia is concerned with making sure that we have articles that go beyond a dictionary definition, and so much of an Ally article would overlap with the Friendship article, considering that ally is commonly a synonym for friend. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean simply expanding the Straight ally article to talk about more than LGBT aspects, that's fine of course...as long as WP:Reliable sources are provided connecting the term straight ally or heterosexual ally to those non-LGBT matters and there is not a WP:Undue weight problem. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

The introduction does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV. No sources either. Needs rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.112.220 (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are partly correct. The problem here is not the POV of the article, it is that its claims are mostly not supported by sources. The article only contains 5 sources, most of which do not seem independent of the subject. Usually when you see unsupported claims in Wikipedia, it means that they constitute original research, reflect some editor's biased perspective or are straight hoaxes. Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Ally Flag

[edit]

As found on multiple website, a prevalent straight ally flag seems to be a stylised letter A (or is it a couple of triangles) filled with the rainbow colours, on a black and white stripped background. The flag is already on wikimedia at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Straight_Ally_flag.svg. I am not aware of the general consensus on the use of this flag, nor could I find an origin for this flag.

Should the flag be added to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galahad78 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the page should have the straight ally flag! I like the flag and think it can add to the content of the page. Mnguytono (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)mnguytono[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Straight ally. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion on Criticism Paragraph?

[edit]

I feel like it would be particularly valuable to discuss a bit more the critical viewpoint of Straight Allies, with either an explanation that's a bit more fleshed out, some examples of people or organizations that have "advocated" for the LGBT community but have little to no tangible contributions to show for it, or both. This would help contextualize criticism that self-proclaimed Straight Allies have faced in history.LDPStardust (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Header

[edit]

I added the header "organizations and activism" I wanted it to flow better and make it look less like one massive clump. Mnguytono (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)mnguytono[reply]

Refining the Lead

[edit]

While the Lead does have an introductory sentence that defines what a "straight ally" is, it does not speak to the rest of the article. The Lead seemed to be too specific in some areas and too vague in others - with the LGBTQ+ community being so expansive, I feel that the terms used in the Lead should be more all-encompassing. Even though the article only has one major section after the Lead, that section is not mentioned at all in the introduction, making the Lead seem somewhat off topic. The Lead would insinuate that the article would mainly be covering how straight allies or formed or are defined, but rather it explores the role of organizations and well-known individuals instead. In my opinion, I think the Lead is almost too concise, and leaves out important information that could be useful to both the introduction and overall understanding of what an ally is. Ahmyers10 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than the issues you mentioned, I feel more strongly about the arrangement of the lead section. Definition and background of "ally" is okay but it doesn't seem right to begin the actual topic almost 50 words into the article. Kidonng (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background Is Irrelevant?

[edit]

I don’t understand how the historical background section and the lengthy description of homophiles relates to straight allyship at all. It doesn’t seem to have a main point so I’m not sure where to begin with editing. --Sydpresscott (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the choice of this word odd.

[edit]

Is ally really the right word for it? Does the word ally not imply a mutually beneficial arrangement? A Straight Ally isn't really gaining anything for themselves though. 88.241.81.192 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mutual benefit is free speech. A world in which everyone is safer to talk without threat of persecution under the guise "righteoussness" is a world in which they are safer to talk freely too. Free speech benefits everyone, even if that freedom isn't used it's still a freedom that matters to have. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If free speech matters, then how come many LGBTQ activists "believe in free speech but..." usually culminating in calling legitimate critique "hate" and claiming that "hate speech is not free speech"?
The word "ally" is also has military origins, which helps charactarize the whole thing as a war. 86.4.200.191 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is lots to gain though, apart from being extremely moral and getting the boundless social validation from the rules based order of democracy that we live in, there is also the fact that double fisting is one of the greatest possible pleasures on this rock floating in the middle of this chaotic and uncaring universe. Maybe open your mind (or behind) a little and try it sometimes. 2600:8800:4880:D480:8961:4F1:F9E7:2EB5 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Social Change

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordanbedall (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jjohnson220 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrewphil7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MMwgst.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2025

[edit]
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: not moved. Despite the detailed arguments and counter-arguments for the proposed title, the target has not received any support from editors. There is instead weak support for LGBTQ ally, with valid counter-arguments based on scope, and otherwise rough consensus for the current title, even if only as status quo. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight ally → Cishet allyCishet ally – The current title "Straight ally" implies that any heterosexual person — including straight trans people — could fit this label. But straight trans people are members of the LGBTQ+ community, not "non-LGBTQ" outsiders. The article lead already defines a "straight ally" as a heterosexual and cisgender person, so the scope is really "cishet". More detailed rationale below. Seven of Nine (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight ally → Cishet ally (or Cisgender heterosexual ally)

Rationale: The current title "Straight ally" suggests that any heterosexual person could be an ally. In fact, most reliable sources (universities, nonprofits, HR guides) define a "straight ally" specifically as someone who is both heterosexual and cisgender — i.e., not LGBTQ+. Since straight trans people are LGBTQ+, the current title is misleading.

Renaming to "Cishet ally" (or "Cisgender heterosexual ally") would:

  • Align the title with the article’s own definition.
  • Avoid the misleading suggestion that straight trans people fall into this category.
  • Use terminology that is established in dictionaries, organizations, and scholarship.

Evidence that the intended scope is cis + het (non-LGBTQ):

  • Human Rights Campaign defines allies as people who are not LGBTQ+ themselves.[1]
  • Pride in Sport (Australia): "An ally, straight ally, or heterosexual ally is typically a heterosexual and cisgender person…"[2]
  • Kutztown University: "A Straight Ally is any non-LGBT person…"[3]
  • Fullerton College: "Straight allies are heterosexual and/or cisgender people…"[4]
  • Midsouth Pride: The Straight Ally flag represents heterosexual and cisgender people who support LGBTQ+ rights.[5]
  • Indiana HR Conference: "A straight (heterosexual) ally is a heterosexual and cisgender person…"[6]
  • Virginia DCJS glossary: "Straight Ally: Someone who is not LGBT…"[7]
  • PFLAG notes that its ally guide was formerly titled *the guide to being a straight ally*, showing the shift away from that phrasing.[8]

Evidence that "cishet" is recognized shorthand for cisgender + heterosexual:

  • Cambridge Dictionary: "Cishet: being cisgender and heterosexual."[9]
  • Dictionary.com: "Cishet … a person who is cisgender and heterosexual."[10]
  • Peer-reviewed literature uses "cishet allies" in this exact sense (e.g., *Journal of Homosexuality*).[11]

Requested outcome: Move to *Cishet ally*. If editors prefer a fully spelled-out form, *Cisgender heterosexual ally* is also acceptable. The key is scope precision: the article already defines this group as cisgender + heterosexual.

References

Seven of Nine (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Doesn't seem like anything close to a common name. Ngrams basically comes up with nothing for "cishet ally". It seems to be too obscure of a neologism to register, so it probably should not be used as the title of a major article on the subject.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for weighing in. I’d note that Ngram isn’t a reliable measure for more recent identity terms — lots of valid LGBTQ+ terminology doesn’t appear often in Ngram but is well attested in dictionaries and peer-reviewed sources. “Cishet” is in Cambridge and Dictionary.com, and is used in Journal of Homosexuality in precisely this context. That demonstrates recognizability and reliable sourcing, which is the main WP:TITLE criterion alongside precision Seven of Nine (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest LGBTQ ally, based on the source headlines from Human Rights Campaign and Fullerton College. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the suggestion, but “LGBTQ ally” is a different scope: it can include queer people themselves (e.g., a lesbian being an ally to trans men). This article is specifically about non-LGBTQ allies who are heterosexual and cisgender, per the lead. “Cishet ally” or “Cisgender heterosexual ally” aligns with that scope, while “LGBTQ ally” would broaden it into a different topic altogether. Seven of Nine (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the sources cited in the article seem to use "straight ally". The difference in meaning is probably not so significant to most people, and the article can discuss it. My impression is that "cishet" is very unfamiliar terminology to most people, and that most would instinctively misprounounce it as "cish·et" or even "kish·et", and "cisgender heterosexual ally" seems a little too technical and complicated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed, weak support LGBTQ ally or something similar (Ally (LGBTQ)?), if some move is agreed but fine with current. Oppose proposed as not commonly used in sources here or at all by Ngrams above, the rationale appears to generate the term rather than show it being used. The sources you provided use the current title or BarrelProof's proposed title? Yes "Cishet" exists in those dictionaries but were not moving this article to just "Cishet". More sources like the Journal of Homosexuality would be appreciated. DankJae 08:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for your input. I’d like to address both points raised:
      • 1. Usage and Recognizability of “cishet ally”:**
    While some may not see “cishet ally” frequently in n-gram data, that doesn’t disqualify it as a valid term. Many newer identity terms—like nonbinary, transmasculine, etc.—also have low frequency metrics yet are well-established in reputable sources.
    These sources confirm that “cishet ally” is in use across academic, professional, and mainstream contexts—meeting Wikipedia’s criteria for recognizability and reliable sourcing.
      • 2. On the “LGBTQ ally” suggestion:**
    That phrase describes a broader group—potentially including anyone supporting LGBTQ+ rights, even if they are LGBTQ+ themselves (such as queer people supporting each other). By contrast, the article’s current scope (as stated in the lead) focuses specifically on *non-LGBTQ, cisgender, heterosexual* allies. Moving the article to “LGBTQ ally” would change that scope and mismatch the content.
      • 3. Flexibility on naming:**
    I understand “cishet” might feel unfamiliar. If “Cishet ally” is contentious, I would also support **Cisgender heterosexual ally** as an alternative. That keeps the scope precise and avoids the current misleading suggestion that straight trans people fall into this category.
    Thanks again for engaging thoughtfully—my aim is to align the title with the intended definition already present in the article. Seven of Nine (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought there was another flag for staight allys?

[edit]

Yeah ~2026-31860-57 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Straight_ally&oldid=1356526372"