Talk:The closet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Humm.

I'm not sure - as I'm not natively english speaking - but in Norway, we also refer to "skapet" (the closet), I _think_ the original here was "Å ha et skjellett gjemt i skapet", that is "Having a skeleton hidden in the closet". It referrs to anything you want to _hide_, that you do not want everybody to know.

I'm not sure how parallell languages develop, but I would think that 'The Closet' is NOT, as the article makes you think, mainly meant towards sexual behaviour, but _ANY_ behaviour you want to hide. I looked it up in WordNet, which says: indulging only covertly; "a closet alcoholic"; "closet liberals" [syn: {closet(a)}, {secret}].

So, _IF_ i'm right, I think a rewrite is in order, and that 'hidden sexuality' should be focused on as the main meaning of the word. Not _THE_ meaning of the word.

It sure seems likely on its face that The Closet came from skeleton-in-the-closet, but it entered use as "The Closet" as a reference to closet homosexuality. --Dmerrill

I'm a little unsure of the way this article is currently worded, but not sure how to best fix it. The terms coming out of the closet (or coming out) and in the closet and so on are strongly associated with homosexuality, but the general term The Closet at which this article is located is not. I don't think closet homosexuality is a more common phrase than, say, closet socialist (an accusation often heard leveled against Democrats in the US political debate). --Delirium 11:39, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Does this really deserve a capital "C"? RickK 04:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being a "closet something-or-other" is one use. Being "in the closet" is another. "In the closet," "the closet" and "coming out of the closet" are nearly exclusively used in relation to homosexuality. Closet doesn't need capitalizing. Exploding Boy 08:56, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy. Having "a skeleton in the closet" and being "a closet X" can be used for other things than homosexuality, but "the closet" and "coming out" are nearly exclusive to homosexuality (compare the broom closet (dang, that should also be uncapitalized)).

I think coming out/being out/outing could be moved to a separate page. There is already enough material for that, and it is a really important concept in gay culture.

In Dutch, kast (closet) is used much like it is in English and Norwegian (even though the original phrase had a lijk ((dead) body) in it instead of a skelet (skeleton)), but for "coming out" the English phrase is used (as a noun) as it stands for much more than the original phrase. -- Kimiko 14:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

We should move this page to "coming out". That would be a lot more positive and empowering than naming the article about the oppressive "closet"! --Sonjaaa 11:09, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, we should not. For one thing, that would be POV. For another, coming out already has its own article, and "the closet" is a seperate concept, despite the direct relation between the two terms/concepts. It is not really Wikipedia's job to be "a lot more positive and empowering"; Wikipedia is not here to empower gays, bisexuals or transgendereds any more than it is to empower Republicans or Democrats or women or men or any other group. The only thing Wikipedia is here for is to be a neutral source for information. Also, the concept of "the closet" is not in and of itself usually seen as "oppressive", but rather, most that support LGBT rights and issues seem to feel that the social forces that make people stay in "the closet" are oppressive. Hence, your suggestion - unless in pure jest - would represent a minority-within-a-minority view, be POV, AND be inaccurate, in that it would redefine a specific concept ("the closet") as another related-but-distinct concept("coming out"). Additionally, suggesting a "move" instead of a merge actually suggests changing "coming out" to the page that "the closet" is, and that would be even worse! ;) Runa27 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

There's already a closet article which covers much of the same ground, though it could stand to be expanded, and some of its current language is (IMO) problematic. There is also a coming out article. Time to let this one go? --Hob 17:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Never mind - I see lots of stuff links to the closet and it makes sense to have a separate article for this usage. I got rid of the redundant (and poorly written) text in closet and added a link from there to here. However, I do think this article could use a slight rewrite to clarify that it's a specialization of a pre-existing metaphor, and I agree that Closet doesn't need to be capitalized in the title. --Hob 18:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Closet -> The closet 2 A clarification 3 revert war 4 Usage question 5 use of term "openly gay" 6 Is the closet harmful?

[edit] The Closet -> The closet

I really think it ought to be de-capitalized. If anyone strongly disagrees, please explain. I almost went ahead and did the move, but I can't anyway because "The closet" already exists (as a redirect) so an admin will have to get involved. --Hob 18:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It looks like there's some conversation above about this. I can't tell what decision they came to, though - it looks to me like 'the closet' (no caps)... Anyhow, in usage, I've never seen it capitalized unless its part of a title to a book or something. -Seth Mahoney 19:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Now moved, to minimise redirects. Ph34r my non-admin ingenuity! Spudtater 19:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A clarification

Added a minor clarification to the part about violent hate crime, highlighting the controversy about the frequency of hate crime.

Reverted your "clarification" as it was certainly not npov, and revealed a very strong bias. If you want to say that there is controversy about whether coming out might entail risking a hate crime, then do so without labeling it as a liberal or left wing idea. On the other hand, before you do, please check the hate crime statistics. For example, the FBI reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf) indicate that in 2003 there were just under 1500 victims of homophobic hate crimes. And please sign your entries if you are tackling a contoversial topic like this Jliberty 15:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revert war

rather than start a revert war and have this discussion in 2 places, see talk:metrosexual

[edit] Usage question

A usage question from a guy who is straight, socially inept, and GLBT-friendly: I have recently seen comments from several celebrities Tim Curry, Sean Hayes stating that they "don't publically discuss their private lives". Is this the same as being in the closet or isn't it? -- 25 November 2005

The term may be used that way (I'd guess usually not, what would be in the closet would be details not identification), see The closet#Other uses. Hyacinth 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] use of term "openly gay"

I had originally posted this under the article B.D. Wong, but realize that this may be a better page to discuss this topic.

Is the term "openly" superfluous in this (and other) articles? I would assume that if someone is identified publicly, such as in Wikipedia, as "gay", it's assumed that the person identifies as such, and is therefore "openly" gay. Perhaps this should be a case in which we simply use the word "gay", and if someone is not "out of the closet", terminology should simply indicate that there is speculation that someone is gay, with citations, of course.

The use of "openly gay" does indicate, to me, that there is some shame in being gay, and therefore someone who is "openly gay" has chosen to escape this shame. --Redheaded dude 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the assumed meaning of the terms gay and openly the statement ("openly gay") can mean at least a few things.

Unfortunately "the" closet isn't like a real closet which you can actually step out of and be done with it. "The" closet is something one must always come out of. I would say some who is "openly" gay in the sense of being out has escaped something, but that isn't necessarily or only shame, it's the closet.

Thus, it is all relative, and I would suggest "openly" be qualified when used (this implies the use of citations), and I would suggest "gay" be qualified also (and by more than "openly").

Hyacinth 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is all a bit of a confusing discussion of what should be a very simple concept. One can be gay without being "open" (forthcoming, honest, public) about it, or one can be "openly gay." Exploding Boy 19:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No um. "Openly" doesn't impart much if any information. Hyacinth

You don't? You honestly don't understand the distinction between "gay" and "openly gay"? I don't believe you. Exploding Boy 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the term is used when people have "outed" themselves. If a person's outing is notable it should be discussed (like a homophobic politician being outed by the media). If they are in the closet, we do not out them at Wikipedia. So it seems similar to saying that someone is "proudly black", which without explanation or discussion would be an odd thing to say. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have ALWAYS seen the term "openly gay" used in the context of people who have stated that they are gay and do not waffle on the issue of their sexuality; they are "out", and they are fine with it, and if you don't like that, well, tough. More than "making no secret of" the fact that they're gay, they've explicitly stated it at one point and are comfortable with it. In other words, these are not simply homosexual people, but rather people who are publicly comfortable with both being and stating that they are homosexual. That is always how I have seen the term used, at least in America. Runa27 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

An example of the difference: kd lang was known to be a lesbian within the Queer communities for many years before she 'came-out'. After she 'officially' told the straight community through an interview she has been referred to as 'openly gay'.

There are a number of celebrities who are known to be lesbian/gay/bisexual within the Queer community who don't seem to be officially recognized as such. I have noticed that Wikipedia in general does not refer to rumoured same-sex relationship the same way that it will refer to opposite-sex relationships.

David Cheater 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I guess my point was very similar to what SanuelWantman said above. If a Wikipedia article says someone is gay, we should assume that the person is gay. It does seem redundant to say "openly" gay. If it's a significant enough to mention in a Wikipedia article, I'd assume that it's either common knowledge or the person is, indeed, "open" about their gayness.--Redheaded dude 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the closet harmful?

In the article:

... he explored in depth the harm caused both to the closeted individual and to society in general by being in the closet.

This sentence assumes the truth of the point of view that being in the clost harms both society and the individual. Is this POV universally held?

If not, what's the best way to mention opposing points of view? posted by --Uncle Ed 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, are there people who think remaining in the closet about one's sexuality isn't harmful? I mean, certainly there are people who believe that one can and should change their sexuality, but that's a different matter entirely, and to change requires that one acknowledge openly that their sexuality is what it is (for now). Alternately, "he explored in depth" seems to indicate that the rest of the sentence is exploring a particular individual's POV, which seems to fall acceptably within NPOV territory. -Seth Mahoney 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the two issues are:

1. Remaining in denial about one's sexuality
2. Keeping one's sexuality private or making it a public matter

Does Wikipedia have any information on the benefit or harm of any of these options? --Uncle Ed 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that it should have any info on the benefit or harm of these options, though it would be acceptable, I think, to have info on whether or not such-and-such a (well-known, influential, etc.) group says this or that about these options (for example, I believe the APA has made statements to the effect that it is not psychologically healthy to remain in denial about one's sexuality - this would be appropriate material). Regarding the second option, homosexuality is problematic in that the line between accepting and being open regarding one's sexuality and handing out flyers about exactly what you do in bed is surprisingly thin and difficult to find. The very fact that it is generally assumed by default that everyone is heterosexual tends to make coming out, even among close family and friends, a continual process, and regular things that everyone does, such as mentioning a girlfriend or boyfriend, can in the case of a gay person invoke in others' minds pleasant or unpleasant images of sex that wouldn't necessarily happen with a straight person. Anyway, I'm not at all arguing against changing this article - it needs work. But I'd recommend being careful about which direction to take it, since it could too easily stray into polemic either way. -Seth Mahoney 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)